People v. Manino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manino

147 A.D.2d 926, 537 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1153

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 147 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Manino) 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. Manino, 147 A.D.2d 926, 537 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1153 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends on his appeal from, inter alia, a conviction for driving while intoxicated as a felony, that the results of his breathalyzer test were improperly admitted into evidence against him. We disagree. The record shows that the test was properly administered by a qualified operator, that the chemicals used in the test were correctly prepared and of the proper kind, that the breathalyzer machine had been found to be properly calibrated on its most recent analysis, 11 months prior to defendant’s arrest, and that simulated solution tests, which yielded correct results, were conducted on the day of defendant’s arrest and immediately after his test. On these facts, the jury could reasonably conclude that the breathalyzer machine used to test defendant was in proper working order; the test results were properly admitted (see, People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — felony driving while intoxicated; menacing.) Present— Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends on his appeal from, inter alia, a conviction for driving while intoxicated as a felony, that the results of his breathalyzer test were improperly admitted into evidence against him. We disagree. The record shows that the test was properly administered by a qualified operator, that the chemicals used in the test were correctly prepared and of the proper kind, that the breathalyzer machine had been found to be properly calibrated on its most recent analysis, 11 months prior to defendant’s arrest, and that simulated solution tests, which yielded correct results, were conducted on the day of defendant’s arrest and immediately after his test. On these facts, the jury could reasonably conclude that the breathalyzer machine used to test defendant was in proper working order; the test results were properly admitted (see, People v Freeland, 68 NY2d 699, 700). (Appeal from judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — felony driving while intoxicated; menacing.) Present— Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 926, 537 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manino-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack