People v. Quinn
| Decision Date | 28 October 1993 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mary QUINN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
John F. Middlemiss, Jr., Riverhead (Alfred J. Cicale, of counsel), for appellant.
James M. Catterson, Jr., Dist. Atty. of Suffolk County, Riverhead (Steven A. Hovani and Glenn Green, of counsel), for respondent.
Before DiPAOLA, P.J., and STARK and LUCIANO, JJ.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the District Court, Suffolk County (Dounias, J., at hearing; Block, J., at nonjury trial & sentence) convicting her upon a stipulated statement of facts of driving while her ability was impaired by drugs and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law, fine and surcharge, if paid, remitted and matter remanded for a new trial.
Prior to trial, a hearing was held to determine the admissibility of "Drug Influence Evaluation," a protocol in the form of a series of tests developed to permit trained personnel to determine drug ingestion. The facts developed at the hearing are set forth at length in the opinion of the hearing court upholding the scientific reliability of the protocol (153 Misc.2d 139, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818). After the hearing, the issue of guilt was submitted on an agreed statement of facts, which, in addition to evidence based on the "Drug Influence Evaluation," stipulated, inter alia, that the People would offer testimony at trial that defendant drove erratically, was given the Miranda warnings and thereafter admitted using cocaine on the evening in question; that she was in possession of a substance determined to be cocaine after laboratory analysis and that she submitted to a blood test which determined the presence of cocaine and diazepam (Valium), also a controlled substance (Public Health Law § 3306). The defendant also stipulated to the accuracy of the laboratory reports and to proper chain of custody. Based upon the foregoing, defendant was found guilty of driving while her ability was impaired by drugs.
A defendant may properly submit the issue of his guilt to a court trying the matter without a jury (see, People v. Mills, 103 A.D.2d 379, 480 N.Y.S.2d 493; see also, People v. Williams, 161 A.D.2d 295, 555 N.Y.S.2d 69). However, in such cases, it is still essential that a defendant entitled to a jury trial waive that right in the manner provided in CPL 320.10 (see, McKinney's Const., Art. 1, § 2; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...N.W.2d at 577; People v. Quinn, 153 Misc.2d 139, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818, 826 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 158 Misc.2d 1015, 607 N.Y.S.2d 534 (Sup.App.Term Ct.1993); Emerson v. State, 880 S.W.2d 759 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 931, 115 S.Ct. 323, 130 L.Ed.2d 284 Here, nu......
-
State v. Ruthardt
...at 559), New York (People v. Quinn, N.Y.Dist.Ct., 153 Misc.2d 139, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818, 826 (1991), rev'd on other grounds, 158 Misc.2d 1015, 607 N.Y.S.2d 534 (1993)), North Dakota (City of Fargo v. McLaughlin, N.D.Supr., 512 N.W.2d 700, 707 (1994)), Oregon (O'Key, 899 P.2d at 674), Pennsylvan......
-
State v. Baity
...in State v. Klawitter, 518 N.W.2d 577 (Minn. 1994), and People v. Quinn, 153 Misc.2d 139, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818 (1991), rev'd, 158 Misc.2d 1015, 607 N.Y.S.2d 534 (1993). Additionally, Dr. Burns testified as an expert in State v. Superior Court, 149 Ariz. 269, 718 P.2d 171, 177, 60 A.L.R.4th 1103......
-
Com. v. Sands
...simple tests. See People v. Quinn, 153 Misc.2d 139, 141, 580 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y.Dist.Ct.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 158 Misc.2d 1015, 607 N.Y.S.2d 534 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1993). Courts generally have admitted evidence of the HGN test. The dispute concerning the HGN test is whether it is a proper ......
-
The offense
...drug impairment has been universally accepted. Compare People v. Quinn , 580 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Dist. Ct. 1991), rev’d on other grounds 607 N.Y.S.2d 534 (1993) with Commonwealth v. Apollo , 603 A.2d 1023, 1028 (Pa. Super. 1992). The court further reasoned that the mere admission of opinion ......