People v Jones (Edward)

[*1] People v Jones (Edward) 2014 NY Slip Op 51436(U) Decided on October 1, 2014 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 1, 2014
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Hunter, Jr., Ling-Cohan, JJ.
570586/11

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Edward Jones, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered July 1, 2011, after a jury trial, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated per se, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered July 1, 2011, affirmed.

The evidence supporting defendant's conviction of per se driving while intoxicated (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2]), was strong and persuasive - including the arresting officers' credited testimony regarding the defendant's appearance and comportment at the scene, as well as the results of roadside Breathalyzer and physical coordination tests - and, indeed, defendant does not now challenge the conviction on sufficiency or weight of the evidence grounds. We find unavailing defendant's lone assignment of error, that the court should not have allowed the trained officer who operated the Intoxilyzer machine to testify as to the meaning of an "insufficient sample" message, viz., that the display of this message indicates that the blood alcohol content score generated by the machine represented the tested individual's lowest possible blood alcohol content. "This testimony amounted to reporting the results of the test, which, once a proper foundation had been laid, was permissible without expert testimony" (People v Dauphin, 112 AD3d 471, 472 [2013], citing People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 148 [1986]; see People v DeMarasse, 85 NY2d 842, 845 [1995]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: October 01, 2014