People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 18 February 2010
• Citation: 70 A.D.3d 1188,896 N.Y.S.2d 199,2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 01386
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,v.John D. JOHNSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

70 A.D.3d 1188
896 N.Y.S.2d 199
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 01386

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
John D. JOHNSON, Appellant.

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

Feb. 18, 2010.

[896 N.Y.S.2d 201]

Michael T. Snyder, Apalachin, for appellant.Louise K. Sira, District Attorney, Johnstown (Chad W. Brown of counsel), for respondent.Before: PETERS, J.P., ROSE, MALONE JR., STEIN and McCARTHY, JJ.STEIN, J.

[70 A.D.3d 1188] Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Fulton County (Hoye, J.), rendered May 22, 2008, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant was arrested and subsequently indicted for driving [70 A.D.3d 1189] while intoxicated (hereinafter DWI). In addition, a special information filed by the People accused defendant of having been previously convicted of DWI. After Huntley, Sandoval and Molineaux hearings were held, a three-day jury trial ensued and defendant was found guilty as charged. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of 2 to 6 years. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant contends that his conviction was based on legally insufficient evidence and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. We find no merit to either contention. In reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v. Harper, 75 N.Y.2d 313, 316–317, 552 N.Y.S.2d 900, 552 N.E.2d 148 [1990] ) and “determine whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury” ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). As relevant here, in order to convict defendant of DWI, the People were required to establish that defendant was driving a vehicle in an intoxicated condition ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3] ).

We find no merit to defendant's argument that, in the absence of any chemical or blood tests or testimony that he was observed consuming alcohol, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he was intoxicated by alcohol—as opposed to merely impaired as the result of pain and prescribed medications ( see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3]; People v. Hamm, 29 A.D.3d 1079, 1080–1081, 814 N.Y.S.2d 403 [2006]; People v. Sawinski, 246 A.D.2d 689, 691, 667 N.Y.S.2d 472 [1998], lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 930, 670 N.Y.S.2d 412, 693 N.E.2d 759 [1998]; People v. Bowers, 201 A.D.2d 830, 830, 608 N.Y.S.2d 347 [1994], lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 909, 614 N.Y.S.2d 391, 637 N.E.2d 282 [1994] ). Police Officer Loretta Weisner testified that she observed defendant operating his motor vehicle in an erratic manner and that, after signaling him to pull over, defendant attempted to flee, first in his vehicle and then on foot. Weisner and other officers also testified that defendant's eyes were glassy and bloodshot, he smelled of alcohol, lacked motor coordination and had slurred speech. One of the officers further

[896 N.Y.S.2d 202]

testified that he found a half empty can of beer in the console of defendant's vehicle. Based on the foregoing, we find that there was valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury.

Defendant also argues that, even if the evidence was legally sufficient, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. In determining whether a verdict is against the weight of the evidence, we view the evidence in a neutral light and, if a different finding would not have been unreasonable, we “ ‘weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative [70 A.D.3d 1190] strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the testimony’ ” ( People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672, quoting People ex rel. MacCracken v. Miller, 291 N.Y. 55, 62, 50 N.E.2d 542 [1943]; see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 636, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 [2006]; People v. Khuong Dinh Pham, 31 A.D.3d 962, 964, 818 N.Y.S.2d 674 [2006] ), giving “appropriate deference to the jury's superior opportunity to assess the witnesses' credibility” ( People v. Gilliam, 36 A.D.3d 1151, 1152–1153, 827 N.Y.S.2d 368 [2007], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 946, 836 N.Y.S.2d 556, 868...