People v. McDonald

112 A.D.2d 722, 492 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56230
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 1985·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2). The Smith and Wesson breathalyzer is judicially accepted as a reliable device for measuring blood alcohol content and the test results were properly received in evidence by the trial court (see, People v Farrell, 58 NY2d 637; People v Gower, 42 NY2d 117, 122; People v Donaldson, 36 AD2d 37, 40). Any issue relative to the kind and mixture of the chemicals used in the test has not been preserved for review (CPL 470.05). Further, failure to preserve a breath sample for independent testing, although technically feasible, did not violate plaintiff’s right to due process (see, California v Trombetta, 467 US —, 104 S Ct 2528, 2535; People v Torres, 125 Misc 2d 78). Finally, the sentence was not unduly harsh and excessive, and we can find no abuse of the sentencing court’s discretion in imposing a 60-day term of imprisonment. (Appeal from judgment of Wayne County Court, Stiles, J. — driving while intoxicated.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

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

People v. McDonald, 112 A.D.2d 722, 492 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

112 A.D.2d 722 (People v. McDonald) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lorenzo
134 Misc. 2d 1000 (New York County Courts, 1987)
People v. Shepherd
130 Misc. 2d 284 (New York County Courts, 1985)