People v. Goedkoop

• Decision Date: 26 April 1960
• Citation: 202 N.Y.S.2d 498,26 Misc.2d 785
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Johannes GOEDKOOP, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 498

202 N.Y.S.2d 498

26 Misc.2d 785

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Johannes GOEDKOOP, Defendant-Appellant.

Westchester County Court.

April 26, 1960.

Joseph F. Gagliardi, Dist. Atty., Westchester County, White Plains, for the People.

Thomas F. English, Jr., Elmsford, for defendant.

JAMES D. HOPKINS, Judge.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction rendered in the Court of Special Sessions of the Town of Greenburgh for a violation of § 70(5) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated). The defendant was tried by the Court with a jury.

Except for a question raised by the defendant concerning the admissibility of the results of a blood test administered to him, there would be little necessity to discuss the evidence upon which the jury's verdict was based. The prosecution established the intoxication of the defendant by the testimony of the arresting officer and a physician with respect to their observation of the defendant's condition (cf. People v. Eastwood, 14 N.Y. 562), and by evidence that the amount of alcohol in the defendant's blood was .20% by weight (§§ 70(5), 71-a, Vehicle and Traffic Law). Although the defendant by his own testimony and other testimony presented proof tending to show that he was not intoxicated, the issue of fact was fairly submitted and determined by the jury, and the verdict may not be overturned on appeal (People on Complaint of Kane v. Lefkowitz, 232 App.Div. 18, 248 N.Y.S. 615, affirmed 257 N.Y. 560, 178 N.E. 794).

The defendant attacks the scientific accuracy of the blood test, however, and his contention deserves serious consideration. It appears that after the blood was withdrawn from the defendant by a physician, it was retained by the arresting officer in a bottle as sealed and inscribed by the physician, and then sent by registered mail the same day in a sealed container by him to the New York State Police Scientific Laboratory at Albany, New York. The container with seal intact was received two days later at the laboratory, the bottle removed and its seal found to be intact. The contents of the bottle were then analyzed, and the results of the test determined as noted above.

The defendant poses two questions to this procedure. He urges in the first instance that the chain of identification of the sample was not established, as required by the authorities (People v. Lesinski, 10 Misc.2d 254, 171 N.Y.S.2d 339; People v. Sansalone, 208 Misc. 491, 146 N.Y.S.2d 359). Doubtless, as these cases hold, proof that the specimen was accessible to persons not called as witnesses at the trial throws such uncertainty concerning the continuing state of the specimen as it existed at the time it was withdrawn that the test of the specimen is accordingly left in uncertainty and cannot be admitted into evidence. Such decisions are extensions of the general principle which allows the condition of an object at a given time to be shown by its prior condition, provided...