People v. Delia
| Decision Date | 25 September 1980 |
| Citation | 432 N.Y.S.2d 321,105 Misc.2d 483 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York v. James W. DELIA. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Richard A. Hennessy, Jr., Dist. Atty., Onondaga County, J. Kevin Mulroy, Dist. Atty., Syracuse, of counsel for the People.
Francis P. Rivette, Solvay, for defendant Delia.
This decision is being written to resolve a certain issue reserved upon at the oral argument of the defendant's Omnibus Motion.
The defendant has requested that a Hearing be held in order to determine the admissibility of the defendant's alleged refusal to submit to a breath test upon the basis that the defendant's rights under the Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 and his rights pursuant to the mandates of Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 had been violated.
Section 1194(4) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides that:
"Evidence of a refusal to submit to such chemical test shall be admissible in any trial, proceeding or hearing based upon a violation of the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this chapter but only upon a showing that the person was given sufficient warning, in clear and unequivocal language, of the effect of such refusal and that the person persisted in this refusal." (Emphasis added).
Thus, § 1194(4) clearly conditions the admissibility of an alleged refusal upon a showing that the request to take such test be accompanied by a sufficient warning of the consequences of such refusal. The language of this Statute does not specifically address itself to the manner in which a Court is to determine the sufficiency of the warning, however, it is manifest that such a determination, if made before the jury in the trial of the underlying charge, would prevent any protection afforded by such Statute to a defendant in the event the warnings given were determined to be insufficient.
Any curative instruction made to a jury, once having heard testimony regarding the refusal to take such test, would most certainly be more in the nature of form rather than substance and any admonishments to disregard such testimony would at best be impractical.
Therefore, the Court believes that a separate hearing should be held outside the presence of the jury, in a pre-trial hearing. However, such a hearing should be restricted to a determination of the sufficiency of the warnings as those warnings are specifically set out in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pantaleo
...N.Y.S.2d 704 (Supreme Court, Monroe County, 1983) (effect of radio frequency interference on the breathalyzer machine); People v. Delia, 105 Misc.2d 483, 432 N.Y.S.2d 321 (County Court, Onondaga County, 1980) (admissibility of defendant's refusal to submit to a breathalyzer In conclusion, t......
-
People v. Cruz, AP-3
...the tremendous prejudicial effect. Therefore the ruling must be made pre-trial. That same conclusion was reached in People v. Delia, 105 Misc.2d 483, 484, 432 N.Y.S.2d 321 (Co. Ct, Onondaga Cty, 1980) and People v. Houghland, supra, the only reported cases which have dealt with the issue of......
-
People v. Walsh
...and unequivocal language of the effect of such refusal and that the person persisted in his refusal." V.T.L. 1194(4); People v. Delia, 105 Misc.2d 483, 432 N.Y.S.2d 321 (County Court, Onondoga County The refusal by an operator of a motor vehicle to consent to a chemical test to determine hi......
-
People v. Popko
...refusal” ( see VTL 1194[2][f]; People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 108, 412 N.Y.S.2d 845, 385 N.E.2d 584 [1978]; People v. Delia, 105 Misc.2d 483, 432 N.Y.S.2d 321 [N.Y.Co.Ct., 1980]; People v. Cruz, 134 Misc.2d 115, 509 N.Y.S.2d 1002 [N.Y.Co.Ct., 1986] ); People v. Walsh, 139 Misc.2d 161, 527......