People v. Malone

Decision Date20 February 1964
Citation247 N.Y.S.2d 641,197 N.E.2d 189,14 N.Y.2d 8
Parties, 197 N.E.2d 189 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Thomas C. MALONE, Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Bernard C. Smith, Dist. Atty. (Charles T. Matthews, Huntington, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Meyerson, Brooklyn, and Frank A. Jablonka, Riverhead, for respondent.

BURKE, Judge.

This appeal principally relates to the admissibility of the results of a blood test in a prosecution for a violation of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The County Court has reversed a conviction of the defendant resting upon a jury finding that the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. The County Court believed that the results of a blood test were improperly admitted into evidence against him because the witness who made the test was not qualified to testify as an expert and there was a possibility that the fluid examined was not blood or that, if it was blood, it may have contained part of an alcoholic antiseptic agent the doctor may have used.

We think, that, since a proper chain of identification linking the defendant with the unadulterated fluid which was examined by a qualified person was established, the results of the blood test were competent evidence and thereby properly admitted into evidence by the trial court. Defendant's other contentions concerning the rulings of the trial court and the supplementary reasons given by the County Court for reversal are without merit.

The doctor who took the blood sample testified that he asked the nurse to furnish him with a nonalcoholic solution with which to sterilize defendant's arm. Although he could not swear that she did so, he assumed that she did since he was not conscious of an alcoholic odor when the solution was used by him. The sample was then placed in a vial, sealed and placed in a container for mailing. A State Trooper took the container home with him when he went off duty, locking it in a strongbox to which he alone had a key. The next day, the sample was mailed to the State Police Laboratory in Albany by certified mail. At the laboratory, the sample was tested by a college graduate, a major in chemistry with two years' graduate work in biochemistry, employed by the State as a chemist for some ten years. It was found to contain .02% alcohol over that required as prima facie evidence that defendant was in an intoxicated condition.

Since there was ample proof that the liquid tested at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Lafountain, 5582
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 18 d2 Julho d2 1967
    ...imperfection of the test should be excluded before being received in evidence.' State v. Fox, supra. See also, People v. Malone, 14 N.Y.2d 8, 10, 247 N.Y.S.2d 641, 197 N.E.2d 189, where the lower court was reversed in excluding the blood test because 'it may have contained part of an alcoho......
  • Amaro v. City of New York
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 d2 Junho d2 1976
    ...of the sample (see Durham v. Melly, 14 A.D.2d 389, 221 N.Y.S.2d 366). To be distinguished are the results in People v. Malone (14 N.Y.2d 8, 247 N.Y.S.2d 641, 197 N.E.2d 189) where it was specifically found, contrary to the facts here, that a nonalcoholic preparation was used to sterilize th......
  • People v. Connelly
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 15 d1 Julho d1 1974
    ...299). Recognizing the practical limitations, the chain of evidence approach has been employed in trials (People v. Malone, 14 N.Y.2d 8, 247 N.Y.S.2d 641, 197 N.E.2d 189) and to a lesser extent in Grand Jury proceedings (People v. Peluso, 29 N.Y.2d 605, 324 N.Y.S.2d 404, 273 N.E.2d 134, When......
  • People v. Turcsik
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 d4 Dezembro d4 1973
    ...and unchanged condition from the time the material was purchased until it was delivered to the chemist (cf. People v. Malone, 14 N.Y.2d 8, 247 N.Y.S.2d 641, 197 N.E.2d 189; People v. Sansalone, 208 Misc. 491, 146 N.Y.S.2d 359), which proof was obviously lacking ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT