People v. Medel-Dominguez (Hesiquio)
This text of People v. Medel-Dominguez (Hesiquio) (People v. Medel-Dominguez (Hesiquio)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
against
Hesiquio Medel-Dominguez, Defendant-Appellant.
The People appeal from (1) an order of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Harold Adler, J.), dated October 26, 2016, which granted defendant's motion to suppress the results of a breathalyzer test, and (2) an order (same court and Judge), dated December 19, 2016, denying the People's motion for renewal.
Per Curiam.
Orders (Harold Adler, J.), dated October 26, 2016, and December 19, 2016, affirmed.
We find no basis to disturb the suppression court's finding that the People failed to meet their burden of proof on the question of defendant's voluntary consent to the breathalyzer test (see generally People v Dobson, 285 AD2d 737, 738 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 658 [2001]), where the People failed to present a full translation of the video recording of the test, particularly the conversation in Spanish between defendant and the Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit officer immediately prior to the administration of the test.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the People's motion for renewal, since the People had a full and fair opportunity to present their evidence at the original hearing (see People v Kevin W., 22 NY3d 287 [2013]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: December 20, 2017
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Medel-Dominguez (Hesiquio), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-medel-dominguez-hesiquio-nyappterm-2017.