New York Driving Intoxicated Insufficient Evidence Lawyers Attorneys

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomson, Appellant

FACTS:

Defendant appeals from his conviction, following a bench trial, of felony driving while intoxicated and driving while ability impaired. Defendant contends that the People failed to lay an adequate foundation for the admission into evidence of the breathalyzer test result because they failed to show that the chemicals were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions thus contends that the breathalyzer result should have been excluded, and that, without it, the evidence is insufficient to support his DWI conviction.

ISSUES:

The issue here is whether evidence was sufficient to convict defendant on the charge of DWI.

DISCUSSION:

When a Breathalyzer test is sought to be used against defendant at trial, the people must establish that the testing device was in proper working order at the time the test was administered, that the test was properly administered, and that the chemicals used in conducting the test were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions. The evidence against defendant was insufficient to support his conviction of

felony driving while intoxicated

where defendant’s proof showed that unscientific lot numbering practices were employed by the manufacturer of the ampoules used to calibrate the breathalyzer operated by the arresting officer, and it is immaterial that the evidence of unscientific lot numbering came from a former employee of the manufacturer who stopped working for the manufacturer before the specific lot number used in defendant’s case was produced, since the former employee’s testimony broadly impugned the reliability of the manufacturer’s lot numbering practices throughout his tenure with the firm. On the basis of that testimony, and particularly in the absence of any proof by the People that the manufacturer’s practices have changed since the employee left the company, the presumption of continuity compels the conclusion that the company’s unscientific methods persisted through the manufacture of the ampoule used in defendant’s case. Accordingly, proof of the unscientific numbering practices renders the laboratory certificates of the breathalyzer’s authenticity incompetent and irrelevant to prove the chemical composition of the ampoules, and without other evidence establishing the proper composition of the ampoules, the lack of competent certification renders the breathalyzer test inadmissible.

JUDGMENT:

The judgment appealed from was modified to reverse defendant’s conviction for felony driving while intoxicated and that count of the indictment was dismissed. Otherwise, the judgment was affirmed.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the

SRIS Law Group

. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts,

New York

, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com