People v. Stisi
| Decision Date | 28 April 1983 |
| Citation | 463 N.Y.S.2d 73,93 A.D.2d 951 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas STISI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David J. Clegg, Kingston, for appellant.
Michael Kavanagh, Dist. Atty., Kingston (Marsha Solomon, Kingston, of counsel), for respondent.
Before SWEENEY, J.P., and MAIN, CASEY, MIKOLL and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County, rendered May 3, 1982, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminally negligent homicide.
Defendant was the driver of an automobile involved in a head-on collision with a vehicle operated by Florence Bonesteel, who died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident. Defendant's eastbound car had crossed over into the westbound lane of Route 28 in Ulster County. Defendant was subsequently indicted on one count of criminally negligent homicide and two counts of driving while intoxicated.
Prior to trial defendant moved to suppress both the results of a chemical blood test which was administered to defendant pursuant to section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the introduction of beer bottles found in his vehicle. The County Court denied his motion to suppress finding that defendant was in police custody at the scene of the accident, which was determined to be sufficient to meet the arrest requirement of section 1194 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and that defendant thereafter gave a valid consent to the extraction of a blood sample. Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide in satisfaction of the three-count indictment. This appeal followed.
There should be an affirmance. The County Court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress. The evidence revealed that defendant was placed under arrest prior to the extraction of his blood for chemical testing, as required by section 1194 (subd. 1, par. ) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Trooper Daley, who investigated at the scene and who was present in the hospital prior to and at the time the blood sample was taken from defendant, testified at the suppression hearing that he heard Trooper Fischer advise defendant, "You are under arrest for driving while intoxicated * * * " prior to defendant's giving his consent to submit to the chemical blood test. This testimony was undisputed and despite the County Court's failure to rely on it, we find that defendant was formally placed under arrest in the emergency room at the hospital prior to the extraction of the blood sample. In view of this finding, it is unnecessary for this court to determine whether defendant was placed under arrest at the scene and we do not reach that issue. Trooper Daley also testified that the blood sample was taken within a few minutes after defendant had been advised of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Slater
...(see, People v. Reynolds, 133 A.D.2d 499, 519 N.Y.S.2d 425, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 803, 522 N.Y.S.2d 121, 516 N.E.2d 1234; People v. Stisi, 93 A.D.2d 951, 463 N.Y.S.2d 73). He was informed that the police would seek a court order permitting blood to be taken against his will. Defendant indica......
-
People v. Rosario
...to submit to testing. Compare, e.g., People v. Moselle, 57 N.Y.2d at 104-5, 454 N.Y.S.2d 292, 439 N.E.2d 1235; People v. Stisi, 93 A.D.2d 951, 952, 463 N.Y.S.2d 73 (3d Dept.1983); People v. Wade, 118 Misc.2d at 335-7, 460 N.Y.S.2d 870 (arrest/request/advice procedure necessary prerequisite ......
-
People v. Osburn
...take the test and indication of urgency amounted to unreasonable pressure that overcame defendant's will to resist (see, People v. Stisi, 93 A.D.2d 951, 463 N.Y.S.2d 73). The court erred, however, in concluding that defendant waived the physician-patient privilege by cross-examining certain......
- People v. Bonds