People on Information of Buckhout v. Sansalone
| Citation | 146 N.Y.S.2d 359,208 Misc. 491 |
| Parties | PEOPLE on Information of William BUCKHOUT et al., Complainant-Respondent, v. Frank E. SANSALONE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 29 August 1955 |
| Court | New York County Court |
O'Donnell & Condon, Yonkers, for defendant-appellant.
Jos. Gagliardi, Dist. Atty. of Westchester County, White Plains (Arthur T. Connick, Ardsley, of counsel), for complainant-respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Irvington, rendered on June 15, 1955, upon the verdict of a jury convicting defendant of the crime of driving while intoxicated. Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 70, subd. 5.
Defendant's sole claim of error on this appeal is in the trial court's admission into evidence, over his objection, of the report and testimony of the chemist showing the alcoholic content of a purported specimen of blood taken from him. He contends that the specimen of blood upon which the analysis was made was not properly identified; that it was not in the continuous and exclusive custody of the police and that there was no evidence that the specimen was in the same condition as when extracted from him.
No stenographic notes were made of the testimony given at the trial, hence this review must be upon the notes made by the Justice as disclosed in his return.
The proof introduced before the jury showed that Dr. Foster extracted a blood specimen from defendant and thereafter delivered it to Sergeant Foley; that Sergeant Foley received the specimen, and at midnight, delivered it to Officer Buckhout who took it home and placed it in his refrigerator; that four or five persons had access to the refrigerator that the next morning, Officer Buckhout said he was informed by his mother that a member of the Irvington Police Force had come to his home and that she took the blood specimen from the refrigerator and delivered it to said officer; that it was Officer Tewey who received the specimen from Officer Buckhout's mother and delivered it to the chemist at Grassland's Hospital; that the analysis by the chemist showed the specimen to contain 0.23% alcohol by weight.
Officer Buckhout's mother did not testify at the trial. There is no evidence in the record to show what condition the specimen was in when she delivered it to Officer Tewey, nor did he testify what condition it was in. There is no showing that the specimen that Officer Buckhout took home was the same specimen delivered to Officer Tewey. There is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. Headley
...and unchanged condition'." People v. Connelly, 35 N.Y.2d 171, 174, 359 N.Y.S.2d 266, 316 N.E.2d 706 (1974) (quoting People v. Sansalone, 208 Misc. 491, 493, 146 N.Y.S.2d 359 (Westchester County Ct.1955)). New York courts will also forgive custodial gaps "where the circumstances provide reas......
-
Perry v. City of Oklahoma City, 41937
...Bruyere v. Castallacci, 98 R.I. 129, 200 A.2d 226 (1964); Apodaca v. Baca, 73 N.M. 104, 385 P.2d 963 (1963); People v. Sansalone, 208 Misc. 491, 146 N.Y.S.2d 359 (1955); Bauer v. Veith, 374 Mich. 1, 130 N.W.2d 897 (1964); Durkam v. Melly, 14 A.D.2d 389, 221 N.Y.S.2d 366 (1961); Benton v. Pe......
-
People v. Porter
...proof of guilt rests upon chemical analysis of a blood specimen or drug and where such proof is available (see People v. Sansalone, 208 Misc. 491, 493, 146 N.Y.S.2d 359, 361). However, where the circumstances provide reasonable assurances of identity and unchanged condition and it would be ......
-
People v. Rutter
...and unchanged condition' " (People v. Connelly, 35 N.Y.2d 171, 174, 359 N.Y.S.2d 266, 316 N.E.2d 706, citing People v. Sansalone, 208 Misc. 491, 493, 146 N.Y.S.2d 359). However, not only did the People fail to establish an unbroken chain of custody respecting the obviously alterable carpet ......