People v. Tompkins

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tompkins

6 Misc. 3d 30, 789 N.Y.S.2d 797, 2004 NY Slip Op 24401, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1858

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 22, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 6 Misc. 3d 30 (People v. Tompkins) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Tompkins, 6 Misc. 3d 30, 789 N.Y.S.2d 797, 2004 NY Slip Op 24401, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

[31]*31Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, accusatory instrument dismissed and fine, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was charged with driving a vehicle which had excessively tinted side windows (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [12-a] [b]). At trial, the officer testified that he estimated that the windows only permitted about 15% light transmittance. Although such a percentage of light transmittance is below the legal threshold (id.), the officer did not establish that he possessed any experience in visually determining the amount of light transmitted through a window, or some other satisfactory reason or basis, such as a “tint-meter,” for his opinion. As a result, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (cf. People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230 [1968]). Although defendant did not properly preserve his objection to the sufficiency of the evidence, we nevertheless review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Consequently, we do not pass on defendant’s remaining contentions.

McCabe, P.J., Rudolph and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

[31]*31Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, accusatory instrument dismissed and fine, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was charged with driving a vehicle which had excessively tinted side windows (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [12-a] [b]). At trial, the officer testified that he estimated that the windows only permitted about 15% light transmittance. Although such a percentage of light transmittance is below the legal threshold (id.), the officer did not establish that he possessed any experience in visually determining the amount of light transmitted through a window, or some other satisfactory reason or basis, such as a “tint-meter,” for his opinion. As a result, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (cf. People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230 [1968]). Although defendant did not properly preserve his objection to the sufficiency of the evidence, we nevertheless review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Consequently, we do not pass on defendant’s remaining contentions.

McCabe, P.J., Rudolph and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Misc. 3d 30, 789 N.Y.S.2d 797, 2004 NY Slip Op 24401, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tompkins-nyappterm-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack