People v. Dycha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dycha

98 A.D.2d 966, 470 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21294

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 16, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 966 (People v. Dycha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Dycha, 98 A.D.2d 966, 470 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21294 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The results of a blood test which indicated that there was .19% by weight of alcohol in defendant’s bloodstream within two hours after a fatal traffic accident were properly admitted at defendant’s trial for criminally negligent homicide; however, we base our determination on a ground different from that relied on by County Court. The testimony at the suppression hearing indicates that defendant, although initially refusing to take a blood test, consented to it after being advised of the consequences of his refusal and consulting with his brother. Detective Orlikowski testified that he personally witnessed defendant give his consent. That testimony was unrefuted, defendant testifying only that he did not recall giving such consent. Results of a blood test taken with defendant’s consent are admissible in a prosecution under the Penal Law (see People v Magiera, 97 AD2d 963). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J. — criminally negligent homicide.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The results of a blood test which indicated that there was .19% by weight of alcohol in defendant’s bloodstream within two hours after a fatal traffic accident were properly admitted at defendant’s trial for criminally negligent homicide; however, we base our determination on a ground different from that relied on by County Court. The testimony at the suppression hearing indicates that defendant, although initially refusing to take a blood test, consented to it after being advised of the consequences of his refusal and consulting with his brother. Detective Orlikowski testified that he personally witnessed defendant give his consent. That testimony was unrefuted, defendant testifying only that he did not recall giving such consent. Results of a blood test taken with defendant’s consent are admissible in a prosecution under the Penal Law (see People v Magiera, 97 AD2d 963). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J. — criminally negligent homicide.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 966, 470 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dycha-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack