NEW YORK

New York Driving Intoxicated Blood Alcohol Level Margin Error Lawyers Attorneys - By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah


The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. James Vet, Defendant

Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County

FACTS:

Defendant James Vet was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. At the conclusion of the People's case and at the close of all the evidence, defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal pursuant to CPL 290.10. Defendant contended the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the charge of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2). Defendant argued that since his breathalyzer test and reading was .10 of 1% by weight of alcohol in his blood, and the breathalyzer machine had a margin of error of plus or minus .001, there was a reasonable doubt which precluded a jury verdict of guilty of this charge.

ISSUES:

The issue here is whether the breathalyzer machine provided an accurate reading of his blood alcohol level.

DISCUSSION:

In ruling on defendant's motion, the court found that the jury's resolution of the issue against defendant was amply supported by the other evidence in the case regarding the accuracy and reliability of the breathalyzer machine together with the arresting officers' eyewitness testimony of defendant's intoxication. The prosecution presented documentary evidence demonstrating that the breathalyzer machine had been tested and calibrated shortly before it was used on defendant, and there was testimony that defendant swerved from lane to lane without signaling and smelled of alcohol from five feet away. A BAC of .10 represents a significant loss of one's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. In this case, the People's documentary evidence demonstrated, to the obvious satisfaction of the jury, that the breathalyzer machine here had been tested and calibrated shortly before its use on defendant and that it was working properly. The court finds the jury's resolution of this issue against the defendant is also amply supported by the eyewitness testimony of defendant's intoxication.

JUDGMENT:

The court denied defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal in a prosecution for driving while intoxicated and held that the breathalyzer machine provided an accurate reading of his blood alcohol level.

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