People v Becker
Annotate this CaseDecided on May 16, 2013
Just Ct of Town of Webster, Monroe County
The People of the State of New York
against
Brian R. Becker, Defendant.
12010334
Candace Lee, Esq., Assistant District Attorney
Matthew J. Mix, Attorney for Defendant
Thomas J. DiSalvo, J.
History of the Case
Thomas J. DiSalvo, J. The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of Common Law
Driving While Intoxicated in violation of VTL Section 1192(3) and Moved From Lane Unsafely
in violation of VTL Section 1128(A).Prior to sentencing, defense counsel filed a motion to
set aside said jury verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30, presumably under subsection (1) thereof
which permits the court set aside the verdict of the jury on "Any ground appearing in the record
which, if raised upon an appeal from a prospective judgment of conviction, would require a
reversal or modification of the judgment as a matter of law by an appellate court."[FN1]
The People called as a witness Karen Lauler, who was the individual who called the
911 Center at about 3:17 A.M. on January 27, 2012 to report seeing a vehicle drive off the road
in front of her home, knock over her mail box and end up on her neighbor's property. Defense
[*2]
counsel then cross-examined the said witness regarding what she saw and what she said on the
911 recording. On re-direct the assistant district attorney played the 911 recording to the jury, after having the disk containing the 911 recording in question marked as People's Exhibit 11.
Upon the completion of the People's case the defense then demanded that the 911 recording be
entered into evidence. The People refused to offer said recording into evidence. The court
granted a trial order of dismissal as to the charge of refusal to take the breath test, VTL
1194(1)(b), but denied said motion regarding the remaining charges. The court denied defense
counsel's motion for a continuance to obtain a witness to establish a foundation necessary to enter
the 911 recording into evidence on behalf of the defendant. The Court then denied defense
counsel's motion for a mistrial, because the People did not offer the 911 recording as evidence,
despite having played the recording to the jury. The defendant then rested without presenting any
evidence or witness testimony. During their deliberations the jury requested that it be able to
review all the pictures entered into evidence. Despite representations to the contrary by defense
counsel, the jury did not make a request to re-hear the 911 recording. The jury subsequently
rendered the aforementioned guilty verdicts.
Issue Presented.
Was the fact that the 911 recording was not entered into evidence a basis for reversal or
modification of the jury's verdict?
Legal Analysis.
The defendant's motion pursuant CPL 330.30 (1) requires the court to review the trial
through the eyes of an appellate court. An appellate court would not affirm a trial court that
"... engage[d] in independent fact finding to set aside a verdict as against the weight of evidence
[*3]
...." (People v. Faust, 178 AD2d 352, 577 N.Y.S.2d 403, 404 [1st Dept 1991]). In this case
the 911 recording, although being somewhat inaudible, was not overall favorable to the
defendant.The 911 recording was played from a disk on the prosecutor's laptop. Although one
could easily hear and understand what was said by Ms. Lauler, it was difficult to hear and
understand what was being said by the 911 operator. "A recording must be excluded from
evidence if it is so inaudible and indistinct that a jury must speculate as to its contents (see
People v. Carrasco, 125 AD2d 695, 696)." [People v. Morgan, 175 AD2d 930, 931, 573
N.Y.S.2d 765, 767 (2nd Dept. 1991)]. It cannot be said that the 911 recording was inconsistent
with the testimony of Ms. Lauler or the arresting officer, Shaun Welch. Thus in that regard the
jury's verdict was quite consistent with the evidence presented by the People.
In any event, "the determination of whether to admit a tape recording is left to the
discretion of the trial judge (see People v. Lubow, 29 NY2d 58, 68; People v. Warner, 126
AD2d 788 lv denied 69 NY2d 887). (People v. Gandy, 152 AD2d 909, 543 N.Y.S.2d 817 [4th
Dept. 1989]).See also People v. Morgan at 766 wherein the court stated "Whether a tape
recording should be admitted into evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. The
determination is to be made after weighing the probative value of the evidence against the
potential for prejudice (People v. Ryan, 121 AD2d 34, 65, cert denied 481 U.S. 1058, opinion
vacated on other grounds 134 AD2d 300)."However, the People did not offer the 911 recording
into evidence. In essence the defendant argues that the court should have exercised its discretion
to admit the recording on the sole basis that it was played for the jury during the People's redirect
examination of Ms. Lauler. It would be an abuse of discretion for a trial court to admit an exhibit
[*4]
not offered as evidence by the party who simply referred to or marked for identification an
exhibit. It should also be noted that defense counsel did not object to the playing of the 911
recording to the jury as being prejudicial. Instead he maintained that the failure to admit the
recording was prejudicial to the defendant.
The testimony of the eye witness, Karen Lauler, and the testimony of the arresting officer,
Shaun Welch, when taken together, presented the jury with overwhelming evidence of the
defendant's guilt.Since the 911 recording was, as previously stated, not favorable to the
defendant, despite some inaudibility, the defense cannot be heard to complain that the People did
not offer it into evidence. In any event, in deciding a motion based on CPL 330.30 (1) the court
must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, give due deference to the jury's
findings of credibility in determining if the jury's guilty verdict was proved beyond a reasonable
doubt by legally sufficient evidence, and that the verdict was not against the weight of that
evidence. (See People v Faust, 178 AD2d 352, 577 N.Y.S.2d 403, 404 [1st Dept. 1991]) As
stated by the court in Faust"The various contentions raised by the defendant ... essentially are
matters of credibility, as to which we find no basis to disturb the jury's verdict." (Faust at 352).
Conclusion.
The motion of the defendant to set aside the jury's verdict, finding the defendant guilty of
common law driving while intoxicated in violation of VTL Section 1192(3) and moved from lane
unsafely in violation of VTL Section 1128(A), is hereby denied. This constitutes the decision
and order of this court.
Dated: May 16, 2013
Webster, New York [*5]
_____S/ Thomas J. DiSalvo _____________
Hon. Thomas J. DiSalvo
Webster Town Justice
Footnotes
Footnote 1: Defense counsel's motion did not designate a subsection of CPL 330.30. However,
the issue he raises does not fall within the remaining subsections.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.