Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eustace Roper, Nunzio Provenzano and Salvatore Briguglio, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1966-03-31
Citations: 17 N.Y.2d 711
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eustace Roper, Nunzio Provenzano and Salvatore Briguglio, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 17
Pages: 711–713

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eustace Roper, Nunzio Provenzano and Salvatore Briguglio, Appellants.
Argued January 17, 1966;
decided March 31, 1966.
Harris B. Steinberg and Stanley S. Arkin for appellants.
Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (Harold Roland Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum. The judgments of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. We need not decide whether entrapment is currently recognized as a defense in New York since, even if it is, the present ease did not create an issue of fact requiring submission to the jury (cf. Revised Penal Law, § 35,40, enacted by L. 1965, ch. 1030, eff. Sept. 1, 1967), No error was committed by the trial court in refusing appellants' request to test the accuracy of Minifon transcripts by requiring the jury to attempt to identify the voices and dialogue without them or by having a court reporter transcribe the tapes as they were being played for the jury. The appellants were afforded considerable latitude to test the transcripts, and all prior transcripts were made available (People v. Rosario, 9 N Y 2d 286; People v. O'Keefe, 281 App. Div. 409, affd. 306 N. Y. 619, cert. den. 347 U. S. 989). We have examined the additional assignments of error and find them to be without merit.
Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Fuld, Van Voorhis, Burke, Soileppi, Bergan and Keating concur.
Judgments affirmed.