People v. Graseck

• Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 50627 (U)
• Decision Date: 01 July 2021
• Docket Number: 2018-2063 S CR
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jonas M. Graseck, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2021 NY Slip Op 50627(U)

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Jonas M. Graseck, Appellant.

2018-2063 S CR

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

July 1, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

Blangiardo & Blangiardo (Frank J. Blangiardo of counsel), for appellant.

Suffolk County District Attorney (Kathleen Becker Langlan of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, J.P., JERRY GARGUILO, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ

Appeal from four judgments of the Justice Court of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County (Eileen Powers, J.), rendered August 24, 2018. The judgments convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of driving while intoxicated (per se) and driving while intoxicated (common law), operating an unregistered vehicle, and two charges of speeding, respectively, and imposed sentences.

ORDERED that so much of the appeal as is from the three judgments convicting defendant of operating an unregistered vehicle and two charges of speeding, respectively, is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further, ORDERED that the judgment convicting defendant of driving while intoxicated (per se) and driving while intoxicated (common law) is affirmed.

Defendant was charged in a two-count information with driving while intoxicated (per se) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]) and driving while intoxicated (common law) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), and, in three separate simplified traffic informations with operating an unregistered vehicle (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 [1] [a]) and two charges of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [a], [b]), respectively. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of all charges and the Justice Court imposed sentences. Defendant appeals from all four judgments, but only challenges the judgment convicting him of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (2) and (3), contending that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecution to introduce a chemical breath analysis report into evidence on the redirect examination of a breath technician.

Generally, the scope of redirect examination is governed by the sound discretion of the trial court (see People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445 [1982]). A court is not prevented from admitting evidence on redirect examination that would have been better proffered upon direct examination (see People v James, 90 A.D.3d 1249 [2011]). Additionally, while the accuracy of breath analysis instruments used for measuring blood alcohol...