From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sealy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1984
106 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

December 10, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Dwyer, J.).


Judgment affirmed.

It was proper to admit into evidence a portion of a tape recording covertly recorded by an agent of the police, in which defendant made an incriminating statement. That portion of the tape which was admitted into evidence was sufficiently audible and unequivocal to warrant its use at the trial (see People v McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, cert den sub nom. Waters v. New York, 446 U.S. 942; People v. Graham, 57 A.D.2d 478, affd 44 N.Y.2d 768; cf. People v. Bernstein, 69 A.D.2d 907; People v. Mincey, 64 A.D.2d 615).

Defendant claims that there were several errors in the court's charge to the jury, but these alleged errors have not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05, subd 2; People v King, 91 A.D.2d 1073; People v. Giles, 87 A.D.2d 636), and under the circumstances of this case we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review the issues raised.

With regard to defendant's remaining contentions, we note that several of the alleged errors were not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05, subd 2). Furthermore, defendant received a fair trial, even if it was not a perfect trial ( Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604; People v. Rivera, 39 N.Y.2d 519; People v Garcia, 72 A.D.2d 356, affd 52 N.Y.2d 716). Lazer, J.P., Thompson, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sealy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 1984
106 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

People v. Sealy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID SEALY, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 10, 1984

Citations

106 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

People v. Gkanios

Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against…