People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martin

100 A.D.3d 930, 953 N.Y.S.2d 893

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 21, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lorenzo, J.), rendered July 6, 2011, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The introduction of testimony regarding the results of a field breathalyzer test performed on the defendant did not constitute reversible error, because this testimony was elicited after defense counsel opened the door to the matter during opening statements and cross-examination (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451-453 [1982]; People v Vines, 51 AD3d 827 [2008]; People v Joyner, 295 AD2d 625 [2002]). Moreover, any potential prejudice to the defendant was alleviated by the trial court’s limiting instructions to the jury (see People v Vines, 51 AD3d 827 [2008]; People v Hernandez, 11 AD3d 479 [2004]; People v Joyner, 295 AD2d at 625). Angiolillo, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Lorenzo, J.), rendered July 6, 2011, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The introduction of testimony regarding the results of a field breathalyzer test performed on the defendant did not constitute reversible error, because this testimony was elicited after defense counsel opened the door to the matter during opening statements and cross-examination (see People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451-453 [1982]; People v Vines, 51 AD3d 827 [2008]; People v Joyner, 295 AD2d 625 [2002]). Moreover, any potential prejudice to the defendant was alleviated by the trial court’s limiting instructions to the jury (see People v Vines, 51 AD3d 827 [2008]; People v Hernandez, 11 AD3d 479 [2004]; People v Joyner, 295 AD2d at 625). Angiolillo, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Martin, 100 A.D.3d 930, 953 N.Y.S.2d 893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

100 A.D.3d 930 (People v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related