People v Ruiz (Julissa)

[*1] People v Ruiz (Julissa) 2017 NY Slip Op 51269(U) Decided on September 27, 2017 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 September 27, 2017
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Shulman, J.P., Ling-Cohan, Gonzalez, JJ.
570560/14

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Julissa Ruiz, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Harold Adler, J.), rendered February 18, 2014, after a jury trial, convicting her of driving while intoxicated, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Harold Adler, J.), rendered February 18, 2014, affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348—349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations, including its assessment of police testimony that defendant drove straight across three lanes of a traffic circle, and exhibited visible signs of intoxication. The videos admitted into evidence, which show, inter alia, defendant performing various coordination tests and walking unsteadily, speak for themselves; and when viewed in conjunction with the manner in which defendant operated the motor vehicle, her statement that she had a "strong" drink, her appearance and comportment at the scene, and the results of the Intoxilyer 5000 breath testing device, which measured defendant's blood alcohol content at .18%, we cannot say that the verdict convicting her of driving while intoxicated (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3]) was against the weight of the evidence (see People v Cruz, 48 NY2d 419, 426-427 [1979], appeal dismissed 446 US 901 [1980].

Defendant's argument that the jury, by acquitting her of driving while intoxicated per se (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2]) and aggravated driving while intoxicated (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2-a]), necessarily rejected the Intoxilyzer test results "calls for an impermissible invasion of the jury's deliberative processes" (People v Williams, 239 AD2d 271, 272 [1997], lv denied 90 NY2d 899 [1997], quoting People v Rivera, 201 AD2d 377 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 875 [1994]; People v Quirisumbay, 50 Misc 3d 139[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50168[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1074 [2016]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: September 27, 2017