People v. Lizzio

178 A.D.2d 741, 577 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16002
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 5, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 741 (People v. Lizzio) 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. Lizzio, 178 A.D.2d 741, 577 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Casey, J. P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Mazzone, J.), rendered October 26, 1990, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the traffic offense of driving while ability impaired.

Defendant was indicted on two counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The jury acquitted defendant of the charge of driving with .10% or more blood alcohol content, despite proof that defendant’s blood alcohol level was .24%, and also acquitted defendant of the charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Defendant’s acquittal of those charges renders moot defendant’s argument concerning the admissibility of the blood samples (see, People v Reding, 167 AD2d 716, lv denied 77 NY2d 999; People v Terrance, 120 AD2d 805).

[742]*742As to the traffic offense of driving while ability impaired, of which defendant was convicted as a lesser included offense, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Conviction of that offense did not require proof of intoxication, but only that defendant’s driving ability was impaired to any extent (see, People v Reding, supra). Two police officers testified that defendant’s eyes were bloodshot, her speech was slurred, she smelled of alcohol and, in their opinion, defendant was intoxicated. An ambulance volunteer testified that she felt defendant had been drinking. There was also proof that defendant’s vehicle struck the back of another vehicle in an area where there was little traffic. This evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict rendered by the jury despite the conflicting evidence offered by defendant. Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed.

Mikoll, Yesawich Jr., Levine and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Johnson (Djani)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018
People v. Scott (Ian)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018
People v. Maher (Erica)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
United States v. Paredes
185 F. Supp. 3d 287 (E.D. New York, 2016)
People v. Sines
129 A.D.3d 1220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Paulino
24 Misc. 3d 832 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
People v. Lebrecht
13 Misc. 3d 45 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. McDonald
27 A.D.3d 949 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Haberer
24 A.D.3d 1283 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Chilson
285 A.D.2d 733 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Gingello
181 Misc. 2d 163 (Rochester City Court, 1999)
People v. Gelster
256 A.D.2d 1133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Domanico
203 A.D.2d 378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Bowers
201 A.D.2d 830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 A.D.2d 741, 577 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lizzio-nyappdiv-1991.