People v. McFarren
| Decision Date | 10 May 1961 |
| Citation | 222 N.Y.S.2d 828,28 Misc.2d 320 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Walter D. McFARREN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Francis V. Domaszewicz, Hudson Falls, for appellant.
John J. O'Brien, Dist. Atty., Whitehall, for respondent.
The defendant, after a trial in a Court of Special Sessions in the Village of Whitehall, before the Police Justice, without a jury, on February 21, 1961, was convicted of the traffic infraction of driving while his ability to operate was impaired, in violation of subdivision 1 of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendant was fined $50 which was paid. From the judgment of conviction, the defendant now appeals and contends that the People failed to prove that the chemical test was made pursuant to the statute; that the chain of identification of the sample was not established as required by the authorities and that the information was insufficient and defective.
The defendant immediately following his arrest was taken by an arresting officer to a doctor for a blood test. The doctor was handed a container by the arresting officer and testified that he withdrew some blood from the defendant's arm and squirted it in the tube which was in the container. The tube was then placed in the container and handed by the doctor to the officer by whom it was retained until mailed by him the same day to the New York State Police Scientific Laboratory at Albany, New York. Analysis by the chemist showed the specimen to contain tenhundredths of one per cent alcohol by weight. The doctor did not inscribe nor seal the container and it does not appear from testimony that the specimen remained in an unchanged condition until its delivery to the laboratory.
Subdivision 1 of section 1192 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides:
Subdivision 1 of section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law provides 'Any person who operates a motor vehicle or motorcycle in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sinclair
...approved by the Department of Health . . .'; State v. Gallant, 108 N.H. 72, 227 A.2d 597, 599--600(4, 5); People v. McFarren, 28 Misc.2d 320, 222 N.Y.S.2d 828, 830(1) (2). See also State v. Fogle, 254 Or. 268, 459 P.2d 873, 876.5 Silas v. ACF Industries, Inc., Mo.App., 440 S.W.2d 189, 192(4......
-
State v. Paul
...State v. Baker, 56 Wash.2d 846, 355 P.2d 806(1); City of Bremerton v. Osborne, 66 Wash.2d 281, 401 P.2d 973.12 People v. McFarren, 28 Misc.2d 320, 222 N.Y.S.2d 828(1. 2).13 State v. Doughery, 358 Mo. 734, 216 S.W.2d 467(2); State v. Bartley, 304 Mo. 58, 263 S.W. 95(1).14 State v. Taylor, 34......
-
People v. Morgan
...that the expert who performs the chemical analysis be properly qualified by education and experience is self-evident (People v. McFarren, 28 Misc.2d 320, 222 N.Y.S.2d 828). Minute quantities of blood or urine and alcohol are involved; in the case at bar, only one-half of a c. c. (one-sixtie......
-
Bowers v. Hults
...separate and distinct, and, often difficult of proof. (People v. Brick, 32 Misc.2d 73, 222 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1961); People v. McFarren, 28 Misc.2d 320, 222 N.Y.S.2d 828 (1961); Finocchairo v. Kelly (supra).) The Commissioner must proceed under the mandates of the licensing statute. (Matter of A......