People v. Scullion

137 A.D.3d 645, 29 N.Y.S.3d 24
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 2016
Docket601
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 645 (People v. Scullion) 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. Scullion, 137 A.D.3d 645, 29 N.Y.S.3d 24 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ann M. Donnelly, J.), rendered November 18, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of driving while ability impaired, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of one year and a $400 fine, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting a videotape of defendant performing coordination tests. Although the police officer who administered the tests did not testify, the videotape was authenticated by the arresting officer, who was a witness to the recorded events (see People v Patterson, 93 NY2d 80, 84 [1999]). Since no testimony was elicited regarding the conclusion to be drawn from the tests, or what the person administering the tests looked for in determining whether or not the arrestee was intoxicated, the reliability of the tests and whether the officer utilized the proper protocols in administering the tests were not in issue. Instead, the video was admitted solely to show how defendant appeared on the night of his arrest.

Similarly, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for a missing witness charge as to the officer who administered the coordination tests. Given the testimony of the arresting officer concerning objective indicia of defendant’s intoxication, without reference to defendant’s test performance, the second officer had no material, noncumulative testimony to offer. Accordingly, a missing witness charge *646 was not warranted (see generally People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d 424, 427 [1986]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Simmons (Davon)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.3d 645, 29 N.Y.S.3d 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scullion-nyappdiv-2016.