People v. Soto

• Decision Date: 13 July 1990
• Citation: 559 N.Y.S.2d 73,163 A.D.2d 889
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Humberto SOTO, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 73

559 N.Y.S.2d 73

163 A.D.2d 889

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Humberto SOTO, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Fourth Department.

July 13, 1990.

Peter Palewski, Utica, for appellant.

Steven M. Chananie, Sp. Prosecutor, White Plains, for respondent.

Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, GREEN, BALIO and LOWERY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant Humberto Soto's contention that the indictment must be dismissed because it was the product of a defective Grand Jury proceeding is without merit. Specifically, he claims that the indictment had been filed by a Grand Jury whose term had expired and had not been extended by court order (see, CPL § 190.15[1]. This issue has not been preserved for our review (see, CPL § 210.20[2], 255.20; People v. Lawrence, 64 N.Y.2d 200, 485 N.Y.S.2d 233, 474 N.E.2d 593). Were we to reach the issue, we would find that the claim has no merit. The record establishes that the Grand Jury had been legally constituted and extended by court order. Even if its term had not been extended, the failure to do so is only a technical error which would not result in dismissal unless there is a showing of prejudice and that the fundamental integrity of the Grand Jury process had been impaired (see, CPL § 210.35[5]; People v. Williams, 73 N.Y.2d 84, 90, 538 N.Y.S.2d 222, 535 N.E.2d 275). There has been no such showing here.

The court did not err in denying defendants Anselmo Soto and Humberto Soto's request to cross-examine the court appointed interpreters. The interpreters were examined on their qualifications in the presence of the jury and were cross-examined by defense counsel. There was no objection to their qualifications. Thereafter, transcripts of the tape recorded conversations were prepared in the presence of and with the help of all parties. Despite this effort, defendants objected to the accuracy of the final transcripts. The transcripts were adjudged by the court to be sufficiently accurate to permit the jury to use them as an aid to understanding the tapes (see, People v. Gandy, 152 A.D.2d 909, 543 N.Y.S.2d 817, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 896, 548 N.Y.S.2d 429, 547 N.E.2d 956; People v. Kuss, 81 A.D.2d 427, 442 N.Y.S.2d 313). The court cautioned the jury that they were to consider the transcripts only as an aid (People v. Gandy, supra) and informed defense counsel that they would be afforded the opportunity to call the interpreters on their direct case and to present their own version of the transcript...