People v Babar
Annotate this CaseDecided on April 16, 2018
Justice Court of the Town of Pleasant Valley, Dutchess County
The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff,
against
Myra Babar, Defendant.
17090345
For Defendant:
Richard A. Berube, Esq.
Serino MacKay & Berube PLLC
12 Walker Road
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
For the People:
Heather Ryan, Sr. Asst. District Attorney
Dutchess County District Attorney's Office
136 Main Street
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
David A. Sears, J.
The Defendant's omnibus motion seeks an Order granting a Huntley Hearing to determine the admissibility of noticed statements, a Probable Cause Hearing, preclusion of field sobriety tests or alternatively a Frye Hearing to determine their admissibility, disclosure of Brady Material, a Sandoval Hearing, an Order directing discovery and leave to file additional motions. The application is upon the affirmation of Defendant's attorney Richard A. Berube, Esq., dated February 26, 2018 and the affidavit of Defendant Myra Babar, dated December 14, 2017. The District Attorney of Dutchess County by Sr. Assistant District Attorney Heather Ryan, opposes in part the application of the Defendant.
The Defendant is charged by Informations with having committed the misdemeanors of Driving While Intoxicated, in violation of §1192(3) of the Vehicle & Traffic Law and Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated in Violation of §1192(2)(a)(a) of the Vehicle & Traffic Law. These offenses allegedly occurred on September 17, 2017 at 1:24 a.m. in the Town of Pleasant Valley, County of Dutchess, State of New York. By affidavit, the Defendant denied she was operating a motor vehicle in violation of any section of the Vehicle & Traffic Law and further indicates that she was not near her motor vehicle when approached by the officer. The [*2]DWI Investigative Notes of Lieutenant Frank LaMonica of the Dutchess County Sheriff's Department, supplied with the People's Answer, indicates that the Defendant was asked to perform four (4) field sobriety tests or physical coordination tests. Those tests included the "Walk and Turn Test", "One Leg Stand", "Modified Romberg Balance", and "Alphabet Test". These were conducted prior to her being placed under arrest.
PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS
Upon the application of the Defendant and the People's Affirmation and Answer to the instant motion, the Court will grant both a Huntley Hearing and a Probable Cause Hearing.
The People have also acknowledged their obligation to disclose, prior to trial, any evidence in the People's possession which would be exculpatory or tend to be exculpatory information. The People are directed to comply with their obligation under Brady v. Maryland to the extent such discoverable information exists.
The People have responded to the Defendant's demands for discovery and provided a Bill of Particulars. The Court directs the People continue to comply with the requirements under Article 240 of the Criminal Procedure Law to the extent discoverable material exists.
A Sandoval Hearing will be conducted immediately before jury selection for the purpose of considering issues encompassed in the authority of People v. Sandoval and to determine the issues raised in an application by the People with respect to the offer of evidence of prior crimes or bad acts of the Defendant on the People's direct case.
The Defendant's application for the preclusion of the field sobriety tests or alternatively for a Frye Hearing is denied. It is well settled that the opinions of experts or skilled witnesses are admissible in evidence in those cases in which the matter of inquiry is such that "inexperienced persons are unlikely to prove capable of forming a correct judgment upon it, for the reason that the subject matter so far partakes of a science, art, or trade, as to require a previous habit or experience or study in it, in order to acquire a knowledge of it. When a question involved does not lie within the range of common experience or common knowledge, but requires special expertise or special knowledge, then the opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art, or trade, to which the question relates, are admissible in evidence". Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923). "Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between experimental and demonstratable stages is difficult to define". Id. The Court must therefore determine whether the "thing from which the deduction is made" was sufficiently established to gain accepted principals in the particular field in which it belongs. Id.
Under the Frye standard, expert testimony is admissible only if a scientific principle or procedure has gained general acceptance in a specified field. People v. Wesley, 83 NY2d 417, 422 (1994). A Frye Hearing is the process meant to assess whether the accepted techniques, when properly performed, generate results accepted as reliable within the scientific community generally. Id at 422. If there is no novel or experimental theory, a Frye Hearing is generally not required. See, People v. Wesley, 83 NY2d 417 (1994), People v. Wernick, 89 NY2d 111 (1996), People v. Brooks, NY Slip Op 01956 (2018).
Field sobriety tests are not scientific in nature. They are based on the indisputable fact that intoxication affects physical coordination and mental acuity. The tests are designed to enhance the ability of an officer who administers them to detect "unstable responses". People v. DiNonno, 171 Misc 2d 335 (Sup. Ct. Appellate Term 2d Dept., 1997). The four (4) field [*3]sobriety tests administered in this case are not scientific in nature and are well known and widely used and generally accepted in cases involving Driving While Intoxicated. See, People v. DeRojas, 196 Misc 2d 171 (Sup. Ct. Appellate Term 2d Dept., 2003). These physical coordination tests do not involve either revealing subjective knowledge or thought process. The significance of the tests lie in the acts themselves. Unstable responses indicate intoxication because those responses are inherently different from responses of a sober person. These tests rely on no new or novel scientific theory. The tests themselves give observational support to an opinion regarding intoxication which forms the basis of the officer's ability to determine probable cause for an arrest. It has long been held that testimony regarding a state of an individual's intoxication does not require a skilled or trained witness. People v. Eastwood, 14 NY 562 (1856). In fact, it is a general rule in this jurisdiction that lay witnesses who have sufficiently witnessed the actions of a person may testify categorically that the latter was sober or intoxicated. Burke v. Tower East Restaurant, 37 AD2d 836 (2d Dept., 1971).
For the foregoing reasons, this Court denies the application to preclude the field sobriety tests or conduct a Frye Hearing to determine the scientific reliability, accuracy or admissibility of each field sobriety test utilized in this case.
Lastly, the Defendant is denied leave to file additional motions. The Court will entertain further motions only if, on good cause shown, and upon the demonstration that reasonable grounds for delay in making any additional motions is established.
This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.
Dated: April 16, 2018
HON. DAVID A. SEARS, Town Justice
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
