People v. Theriault
| Citation | 75 A.D.2d 971,428 N.Y.S.2d 365 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jackaleen THERIAULT, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1980 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
F. Birt Evans, Jr., Ogdensburg, for appellant.
William H. Power, Jr., St. Lawrence County Dist. Atty., Canton, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREENBLOTT, SWEENEY, KANE and CASEY, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered May 21, 1979, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of conspiracy in the first degree.
Defendant was indicted for the crime of conspiracy in the first degree and was found guilty as charged. Specifically, she was charged with conspiring with others to kill her husband. She was sentenced to a term of two to six years in a New York Correctional Facility. This appeal ensued and defendant raises three issues urging reversal.
Initially, it is urged that the court erred in denying defendant's motion to reserve her opening statement until the close of the People's case. We disagree. It is well established that the order of trial prescribed by statute should be followed unless there is a showing of a compelling reason for a variation (People v. Seiler, 246 N.Y. 262, 158 N.E. 615; People v. Pollard, 54 A.D.2d 1012, 388 N.Y.S.2d 164). We find no such compelling reason from our examination of the record.
We also reject defendant's contention that there was insufficient foundation for the entry of various tape-recorded telephone conversations between defendant and an undercover agent into evidence. The agent was unable to identify the voice on the phone as that of defendant. The agent, however, was given a phone number supplied by a coconspirator who in turn had received it from defendant. The recipient of the call identified herself as "Jackie". In one of the conversations she referred to her husband by name. In another conversation she used the word "victim" and agreed to produce him at a specified time and location. This ultimately occurred. While a mere self-serving statement of identity by a caller whose voice is unknown to the listener is insufficient authentication (Murphy v. Jack, 142 N.Y. 215, 36 N.E. 882), it need not be fatal where indices of reliability are to be found in surrounding facts and circumstances (see People v. McKane, 143 N.Y. 455, 38 N.E. 950). Each case, however, must be determined by its own peculiar facts and circumstances. Considering the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ely
...and the difficulty, except for an expert, of detecting such a change, this must necessarily be so. To the extent that People v. Theriault, 75 A.D.2d 971, 428 N.Y.S.2d 365, relied on by the Appellate Division (115 A.D.2d, at p. 174, 495 N.Y.S.2d 240, supra ), suggests the contrary, it is not......
-
People v. Fama
...of trial prescribed by CPL 260.30 should be followed (see, People v. Farrow, 176 A.D.2d 130, 131, 574 N.Y.S.2d 17; People v. Theriault, 75 A.D.2d 971, 428 N.Y.S.2d 365). Whether to reopen a case for further testimony rests in the sound discretion of the trial court (People v. Frieson, 103 A......
-
People v. Farrow
...of trial prescribed by statute should be followed unless there is a showing of compelling reason for a variation" (People v. Theriault, 75 A.D.2d 971, 428 N.Y.S.2d 365). Here, the refusal to reopen the trial was not an abuse of discretion (see People v. Munoz, 153 A.D.2d 281, 550 N.Y.S.2d 6......
-
People v. Ely
...2167, 64 L.Ed.2d 797). Here, the surrounding circumstances convincingly establish that the tapes were genuine (see, People v. Theriault, 75 A.D.2d 971, 428 N.Y.S.2d 365). We also reject defendant's contention that the County Court erred in refusing to redact certain portions of the tapes co......