New York Driving Intoxicated Exclude Breathalyzer Evidence Lawyers Attorneys

New York Driving Intoxicated Exclude Breathalyzer Evidence Lawyers Attorneys

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

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

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT

FACTS:

Defendant appealed from the judgment of the Yates County (New York) that convicted him of two felony counts of driving while intoxicated. Prior to trial, defendant moved to exclude the breathalyzer test result on the ground that the foundational evidence relied upon by the People failed to establish the proper chemical composition of the ampoules used in the test. The trial court denied the motion.

ISSUES:

The issue here is whether the

testing device

was in proper working order at the time the test was administered and that the test was properly administered.

DISCUSSION:

Proof that the operator of the breathalyzer was certified by the Department of Health to conduct breathalyzer tests is presumptive evidence that the test was properly given. The record of analysis was properly admitted as evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the chemicals used in conducting the test were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions. Defendant’s submissions challenging the accuracy of the information contained in the record of analysis go to its weight, not its admissibility, and did not so undermine the probativeness of the People’s foundational evidence as to render the breathalyzer test results inadmissible. Since defendant admitted to two prior convictions of driving while intoxicated at his arraignment upon the special information filed by the People, the proof was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of driving while intoxicated as a felony.

JUDGMENT:

Judgment was affirmed. The certified record of analysis of breathalyzer ampoules was admissible in evidence as a business record, and he issues raised by defendant went to the weight of evidence, not its admissibility.

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