People v. Olsen

Citation239 N.E.2d 354,22 N.Y.2d 230,292 N.Y.S.2d 420
Parties, 239 N.E.2d 354 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. James N. OLSEN, Respondent.
Decision Date05 June 1968
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Albert W. Schneider, Dist. Atty. (Henry D. Blumberg, Herkimer, of counsel), for appellant.

Edward J. Rose and George G. Fiesinger, Little Falls, for respondent.

KEATING, Judge.

The People appeal by permission of an Associate Judge of this court from an order of the Herkimer County Court which reversed a judgment of the City Court of the City of Little Falls convincing the defendant of violating section 1180 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, Consol. Laws, c. 71.

The basis of the County Court's decision was that the only evidence that the defendant operated his vehicle in excess of the 30-mile-per-hour speed limit was the testimony of two police officers who had independently observed the vehicle proceeding at speeds which they estimated to be between 50 and 55 miles per hour. The County Court ruled that this testimony, uncorroborated by any mechanical device for gauging speed, was insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain the defendant's conviction.

The question presented by this appeal--one of first impression--is whether the opinion evidence of police officers, properly qualified to testify as experts, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for speeding. Our past decisions in cases of this kind have only gone so far as sustaining convictions where, in addition to the police testimony, there has been some mechanical device by which the speed of the defendants' vehicles was gauged. (People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493, 155 N.E.2d 393; People v. Magri, 3 N.Y.2d 562, 170 N.Y.S.2d 335, 147 N.E.2d 728; People v. Heyser, 2 N.Y.2d 390, 161 N.Y.S.2d 36, 141 N.E.2d 553. * )

An examination of the decisions relating to the admissibility of opinion evidence of this kind clearly indicates that in a proper case opinion evidence, uncorroborated by mechanical devices, will be sufficient to sustain a speeding conviction.

The rule is well settled in this State that opinion evidence with regard to the speed of moving vehicles is admissible provided that the witness who testifies first shows some experience in observing the rate of speed of moving objects or some other satisfactory reason or basis for his opinion. In Senecal v. Drollette, 304 N.Y. 446, 108 N.E.2d 602, for example, we held that a 12-year-old boy, who often rode in automobiles and watched their speedometers, could testify as to the speed of a vehicle which had injured his friend. (See, also Salter v. Utica & Black Riv. R.R Co., 59 N.Y. 631; Shulman v. Roseth Corp., 227 App.Div. 577, 238 N.Y.S. 575; Fisher v. Union Ry. Co., 86 App.Div. 365, 83 N.Y.S. 694; Penny v. Rochester Ry. Co., 7 App.Div. 595, 40 N.Y.S. 172, affd. 154 N.Y. 770, 49 N.E. 1101. Richardson, Evidence (9th ed., Prince), § 384.)

Having held that such evidence is clearly competent and admissible, we fail to perceive any reason why it should be held to be insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction for speeding in Every case. It is true, as the defendant argues, that a police officer cannot testify with precise accuracy as to speed of a vehicle. (See, also, People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493, 155 N.E.2d 393, supra (concurring opn. of Van Voorhis, J.).) This does not mean, however, that his estimate of speed, based upon considerable experience, must be ignored in all cases. A police officer's estimate that a defendant was traveling at 50 to 55 miles per hour in a 30-mile-an-hour zone should be sufficient to sustain a conviction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • United States v. Sowards
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • June 26, 2012
    ...result, a difference that would be discernable to an observant and trained law enforcement officer”); cf. People v. Olsen, 22 N.Y.2d 230, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420, 239 N.E.2d 354, 355 (1968) (holding officer's visual speed estimate of vehicle traveling 50–55 mph in a 30–mph zone sufficient to suppo......
  • People v. Watkins
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 27, 2020
    ...a proper basis for his opinion that defendant was traveling approximately 35 miles per hour over the speed limit (see People v. Olsen, 22 N.Y.2d 230, 231–232, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420, 239 N.E.2d 354 [1968] ). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, we find that......
  • People v. Cervera
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • July 8, 2013
    ...20 miles per hour differential deemed “clearly sufficient” to support a speeding conviction based on a visual estimate ( People v. Olsen, 22 N.Y.2d 230, 232, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420, 239 N.E.2d 354 [1968];People v. Moirzadeh, 31 Misc.3d 145[A], 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 50939[U], 2011 WL 2084233 [App. Te......
  • Stanganelli v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • August 3, 2015
    ...1180 speeding violation (People v. Giaccio, 42 Misc. 3d 127(A), 983 N.Y.S.2d 205 (Sup. Ct. App. Term 2d Dept. 2013) (citing People v. Olsen, 22 N.Y.2d 230, 232 (1968))), defendant U.S. has raised a material issue of fact as to whether it was Eckert's vehicle that plaintiff visually estimate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2015 Contents
    • August 2, 2015
    ...Value of property or services. Tulin v. Bostic , 152 A.D.2d 887, 544 N.Y.S.2d 88 (3d Dept. 1989). • Speed of a vehicle. People v. Olsen , 22 N.Y.2d 230, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1968); Sweeney v. Peterson, 1 A.D.3d 650, 766 N.Y.S.2d 255 (3d Dept. 2003); Shpritzman v. Strong, 248 A.D.2d 524, 670 N.......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2019 Contents
    • August 2, 2019
    ...Value of property or services. Tulin v. Bostic , 152 A.D.2d 887, 544 N.Y.S.2d 88 (3d Dept. 1989). • Speed of a vehicle. People v. Olsen , 22 N.Y.2d 230, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1968); Sweeney v. Peterson, 1 A.D.3d 650, 766 N.Y.S.2d 255 (3d Dept. 2003); Shpritzman v. Strong, 248 A.D.2d 524, 670 N.......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2021 Contents
    • August 2, 2021
    ...Value of property or services. Tulin v. Bostic , 152 A.D.2d 887, 544 N.Y.S.2d 88 (3d Dept. 1989). • Speed of a vehicle. People v. Olsen , 22 N.Y.2d 230, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1968); Sweeney v. Peterson, 1 A.D.3d 650, 766 N.Y.S.2d 255 (3d Dept. 2003); Shpritzman v. Strong, 248 A.D.2d 524, 670 N.......
  • Witness examination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Objections
    • May 3, 2022
    ...Value of property or services. Tulin v. Bostic , 152 A.D.2d 887, 544 N.Y.S.2d 88 (3d Dept. 1989). • Speed of a vehicle. People v. Olsen , 22 N.Y.2d 230, 292 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1968); Sweeney v. Peterson, 1 A.D.3d 650, 766 N.Y.S.2d 255 (3d Dept. 2003); Shpritzman v. Strong, 248 A.D.2d 524, 670 N.......
  • 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