People v. Manino

147 A.D.2d 926, 537 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1153
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1989·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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).

147 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Manino) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Boscic
938 N.E.2d 989 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
People v. Dargento
302 A.D.2d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Mickle
187 Misc. 2d 718 (Canaan Justice Court, 2001)