From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mieles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1996
226 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

April 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends, among other things, that the trial court improperly admitted a tape recording made by the undercover officer as he observed the exchange of drugs for money between the defendant and codefendant. The tape consisted of the undercover officer's contemporaneous observations of the exchange. The defendant argues that the tape was improperly admitted as a present sense impression. However, the tape was not admitted as a present sense impression, but as a prior consistent statement to rebut the allegation that the undercover officer's testimony was a recent fabrication ( see, People v. McDaniels, 81 N.Y.2d 10), and the defendant does not argue that admission of the tape for this purpose was improper. Nevertheless, the tape could have been admitted as a present sense impression because it was a spontaneous description, made contemporaneously with the events described, and, under the circumstances of this case, it was sufficiently corroborated ( see, People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729; People v. Buie, 86 N.Y.2d 501, 509-513).

The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly permitted the prosecution to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior drug dealings with the codefendant, a prosecution witness. However, this evidence was not introduced to establish the defendant's criminal propensity ( see, People v Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 54-55), and the court properly instructed the jurors that they were not to use this evidence for that purpose. The defendant was charged with acting in concert with the codefendant, and their prior drug-dealing relationship was relevant on the issue of the defendant's intent in the charged transactions and to establish a common plan ( see, People v Mascoli, 166 A.D.2d 612; People v. Tabora, 139 A.D.2d 540).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mieles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 1, 1996
226 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Mieles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE MIELES, Also…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 1, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 397 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 264

Citing Cases

People v. Mieles

November 3, 2003. Application by appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Kourani

The court, however, sustained the prosecutor's objection to Siraco's testimony regarding the descriptions he…