People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 16 June 2021
• Docket Number: 2018–04417,Ind. No. 97/17
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Tyrell JOHNSON, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

195 A.D.3d 859
145 N.Y.S.3d 844 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Tyrell JOHNSON, appellant.

2018–04417
Ind. No. 97/17

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—May 24, 2021
June 16, 2021

Gary E. Eisenberg, New City, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Anna Katharina Diehn of counsel), for respondent.

HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered April 4, 2018, convicting him of driving while intoxicated, as a felony, in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3) and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the conviction of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3) beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that crime was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

However, the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the conviction of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree. A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree when that person "intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference" ( Penal Law § 195.05 ). The interference must

145 N.Y.S.3d 845

be "in part at least, physical in nature" ( People v. Case, 42 N.Y.2d 98, 102, 396 N.Y.S.2d 841, 365 N.E.2d 872 ), but "criminal responsibility should attach to minimal interference set in motion to frustrate police activity" ( Matter of Davan L., 91 N.Y.2d 88, 91, 666 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 689 N.E.2d 909 ; see People v. Dumay, 23 N.Y.3d 518, 524, 992 N.Y.S.2d 672, 16 N.E.3d 1150 ). Here, according to the arresting officers' testimony, the defendant was argumentative throughout the traffic stop and arrest-booking process, repeatedly refused to answer the officers' questions, and refused to participate physically in any way in the arrest-booking process, including refusing to stand for a photograph, to provide his fingerprints, or to sign a Miranda form (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384...