People v. Lovejoy
| Decision Date | 03 May 1971 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Scott LOVEJOY, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Matthew F. McHugh, Dist. Atty., William P. Sullivan, Ithaca, of counsel, for plaintiff.
John Lo Pinto, Ithaca, Fred Weinstein, Ithaca, of counsel, for defendant.
DECISION DIRECTING CERTIFICATE FOR REMOVAL TO GRAND JURY
Defendant moves for a certificate pursuant to the provisions of § 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that it is reasonable that the charge herein be prosecuted by indictment. Application is granted.
Defendant was arrested on December 12, 1970, and charged with a violation of § 1192, subd. 2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, driving while intoxicated.
It appears that defendant consented to to a blood alcohol test following the arrest. Defendant was taken to the Tompkins County Hospital where a physician, at the time of their arrival, was not available to take the blood, and it is claimed by defendant that the blood sampel was not taken within two hours of the time of arrest. There appears to be some confusion in that neither the hospital nor the arresting officer have any recollection or record of the name of the physician taking the blood or the time the blood was taken, and that the physician who took the blood, as determined by defendant through independent investigation, also has no record or recollection of the time the blood was taken.
The defendant has the burden to establish that it is reasonable and necessary that the crime charged be prosecuted by indictment, and that the necessary criteria are present, including the existence of a property right of defendant. (People v. Rosenberg, 59 Misc. 342, 112 N.Y.S. 316) The mandatory revocation of an operator's license, following conviction under § 1192, subd. 2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, establishes the existence of a property right in the instant case, but this factor, standing alone, is insufficient to warrant transfer to the Grand Jury where a jury trial is available without transfer. (People v. Stein, Sup., 236 N.Y.S.2d 703) The legislature has directed trial of misdemeanors in Special Sessions and, therefore, it is the position of this Court that the discretion, in favor of an applicant, should be exercised under § 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only where there are unusual circumstances or issues, notwithstanding that the Court of Appeals has held that the duty of the Court to advise a defendant of his right to an adjournment, for the purpose of securing a certificate, is mandatory and not merely directory (People v. Haskell, 9 N.Y.2d 729, 214 N.Y.S.2d 344, 174 N.E.2d 328).
There are certainly unusual issues here which may present difficult questions of both law and fact on whether the result of the blood alcohol test is admissible in evidence on the trial to prove or disprove the alleged guilt of defendant. A court of Special Sessions should not be required to resolve these issues. Perhaps the confusion surrounding the taking of the blood sample should be considered by a grand jury before the defendant is required to stand trial.
There is a further point of law involving the construction of § 1194, subdivision 2, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and which may involve due process.
The statute, being penal in character, must be strictly construed. (People v. Pardee, 202 Misc. 238, 117 N.Y.S.2d 515, affd.282 App.Div. 735, 122 N.Y.S.2d 902, affd. 306 N.Y. 660, 116 N.E.2d 495) The admission in evidence of the results of the blood test is statutory and must be strictly complied with (People v. Ashby, 31 Misc.2d 707, 220 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lehman v. Dobbs Ferry Bd. of Ed. Union Free School Dist. No. 3, Town of Greenburgh
-
People v. Dean
...As this Court noted in an earlier case, removal depends upon the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved. People v. Lovejoy, 66 Misc.2d 1003, 323 N.Y.S.2d 95. Or, as the Honorable Judge Swartwood noted in another opinion on removal dealing with the same defendant as in the insta......
-
Hewitt, In re, Application of
...that a blood sample was lost (People v. McAnarney, 28 Misc.2d 778, 210 N.Y.S.2d 340), or was not taken in time (People v. Lovejoy, 66 Misc.2d 1003, 323 N.Y.S.2d 95) or other such circumstances to warrant removal on the grounds of legal complexity of questions of law that may arise in the tr......
-
People v. Banaszak
...magnitude could surface that it would be only proper that a lower criminal court not be required to resolve it. People v. Lovejoy, 66 Misc.2d 1003, 323 N.Y.S.2d 95 (1971). Such is the situation here where the issue of the sufficiency of corroboration in the event the testimony of all the wi......