Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1] ) and assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10[4] ). The conviction stems from an incident that occurred during the early morning hours of July 29, 1994, when defendant broke into the apartment of his former girlfriend and stabbed her in the left temple area with a pair of scissors. About a month after the incident, the victim received a number of hang-up telephone calls and threats. Fearing for her safety, she contacted the Monroe County District Attorney's Office. An investigator suggested that a recording device could be hooked up to her telephone. She agreed to have it installed. At trial, she testified about taped telephone conversations with defendant during which she asked him why he had tried to kill her. The audiotapes of those conversations were properly admitted in evidence. The record supports Supreme Court's determination that the victim was not acting as an agent of law enforcement when recording those conversations (see, People v. Henriquez, 214 A.D.2d 485, 486, 625 N.Y.S.2d 526, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 873, 635 N.Y.S.2d 954, 659 N.E.2d 777; People v. Dabney, 75 A.D.2d 822, 823, 427 N.Y.S.2d 488).
Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that the conviction of assault in the first degree was barred by the merger doctrine (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Johnson 204 A.D.2d 1024, 612 N.Y.S.2d 528, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 827, 617 N.Y.S.2d 147, 641 N.E.2d 168), and we decline to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a]; People v. Redd, 234 A.D.2d 127, 128, 651 N.Y.S.2d 454, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1040, 659 N.Y.S.2d 870, 681 N.E.2d 1317; People v. Geer, 188 A.D.2d 1014, 592 N.Y.S.2d 995, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1073, 601 N.Y.S.2d 592, 619 N.E.2d 670).
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 18, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)