People v. Guidice, 83 N.Y.2d 630 (1994)

Line sheets created by police officers during a surveillance operation to track recorded phone conversations are admissible as business records if they are made in the regular course of police business, even if they are also potentially useful for litigation.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether line sheets, created by police during a surveillance operation to document intercepted phone conversations, were admissible as business records. The defendant argued the line sheets were created solely for litigation purposes and thus inadmissible. The Court held that the line sheets were admissible because they served an administrative function in the police surveillance operation, were required by court order, maintained an inventory of tapes, and were included in progress reports, making them records made in the ordinary course of police business, regardless of potential litigation use.

Facts

Defendants David and Anthony Guidice, along with James Smith, were convicted of assault after an altercation with Tom Meyer at a construction site. The assault occurred after David Guidice called his father, Anthony, for help following a dispute with Meyer. Anthony then contacted Smith to assist David in exacting retribution. As evidence, the prosecution presented tape recordings of intercepted telephone conversations. The conversations were recorded during an unrelated investigation, so the prosecution sought to establish the chain of custody using line sheets prepared by monitoring agents at the time of each conversation. The line sheets contained details such as the master tape number, date, call number, conversation times, and recorder counter numbers.

Procedural History

The defendants were convicted of assault in the second degree after a jury trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments of conviction. The defendants appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the line sheets were improperly admitted and that venue was improper.

Issue(s)

1. Whether line sheets prepared by police officers during a surveillance operation are admissible as business records under CPLR 4518.
2. Whether venue was properly established in New York County.
3. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a circumstantial evidence charge regarding defendant Anthony Guidice.

Holding

1. Yes, because the line sheets were records made in the ordinary course of police business, serving an administrative function beyond potential litigation use.
2. Yes, because defendant Anthony Guidice formulated the criminal intent to commit assault in New York County.
3. No, because Anthony Guidice’s statements constituted direct evidence of his involvement in the assault.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling, finding the line sheets admissible as business records under CPLR 4518. The Court reasoned that law enforcement agencies qualify as “businesses” for the purposes of the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The Court relied on People v. Foster, 27 NY2d 47, 52, noting that while the line sheets might foreseeably be used for litigation, that was not their sole purpose. The Court stated that the linesheets served an important administrative function, were required by court order to maintain an inventory of tapes, safeguard them against tampering, and were included in progress reports filed with the judge supervising the wiretap order.

The court also held that venue was proper in New York County because Anthony Guidice formed the intent to commit the assault there. Citing People v. Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, 292, the Court stated that whenever a defendant commits an act in a county sufficient to establish an element of a charged offense, co-defendants may likewise be tried in that county.

Finally, the Court determined that a circumstantial evidence charge was not required because Anthony Guidice’s statements were direct evidence of his guilt. His statements that he “sent two guys to break [Meyer’s] legs” and that he “put him in the hospital” were acknowledgments that he solicited the attack. The court referenced People v Rumble, 45 NY2d 879, 880, stating that a defendant’s statement is considered direct evidence if it constitutes a relevant admission of guilt.