People v. Skupien

• Decision Date: 20 April 1962
• Citation: 227 N.Y.S.2d 165,33 Misc.2d 908
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Paul SKUPIEN, Defendant.
• Court: New York County Court

Page 165

227 N.Y.S.2d 165

33 Misc.2d 908

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Paul SKUPIEN, Defendant.

County Court of Orleans.

April 20, 1962.

Ellsworth M. Murray, Albion, for appellant.

Franklin B. Cropsey, Dist. Atty., for respondent.

J. KENNETH SERVE, Judge.

On February 13, 1962, the defendant was convicted by a Court of Special Sessions in the Town of Barre, Orleans County, New York (Hon . Alvin G. Peglow, Justice of the Peace) of speeding, in violation of § 1180, subdivision (b), par. 2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and was fined $100.00 and his license suspended.

Upon this appeal, the defendant claims that substantial errors were committed at his trial in that evidence was admitted as to the 'clocking' of the defendant without proper proof of the accuracy of the speedometer in the car of the arresting officer, and further that the witness, who testified as to the speed of the defendant's car, was not a qualified observer.

The arresting officer, who was the sole witness for the people, testified that, based upon his personal observation of the defendant's car, it was his opinion that the defendant was operating the same at 70 miles per hour, and that when he clocked the defendant, the defendant was traveling at a rate of 60 miles per hour. The officer's opinion as to the speed of defendant's car was based on his observation north of the hamlet of Barre Center, while the alleged violation for which the defendant was arrested and tried occurred south of Barre Center, and several miles distant from the place where the officer estimated the defendant's speed to be 70 miles per hour.

It is important to note that the officer testified that Barre Center constituted a restricted speed zone, and that the defendant slowed down in such speed zone, and after the defendant left Barre Center, the officer started, for the first time, to clock the defendant. The defendant testified he reduced his speed below 50 miles per hour in the Barre Center restricted speed zone, and then increased the speed of his vehicle to 50 miles per hour after he left and traveled south of Barre Center. The defendant's testimony on this point was uncontradicted and in fact the arresting officer also testified that the defendant reduced speed through the hamlet of Barre Center. The arrest was based on the speed that the defendant allegedly operated his motor vehicle at while the officer clocked him. The officer did not testify as to his personal opinion of the speed of the defendant's car for the period and in the location while the clocking was being done

In an effort to prove the accuracy of the speedometer on the car of the arresting officer, there was received in evidence, over the defendant's objection, an exhibit entitled 'Speed Deviation Record'. On this exhibit appeared a signature over a line, which was apparently that of the arresting officer, and indicated such officer to be the driver of the car at the time of the test, and also the signature of an officer over a line which identified such officer as the 'Observer'. No testimony was offered as to the validity of either signature. In reference to the deviation record, the witness testified that he witnessed the calibration test. The witness did not state what he observed nor how the speedometer deviation test was made. Neither did he state, from his own personal observation of the test, what the results of the test were. The witness merely stated that 'This car being calibrated on the 26th day of November, 1961, myself being the witness to calibration and driver of the car, I...