People v. Stratton

• Decision Date: 17 February 1956
• Citation: People v. Stratton, 1 N.Y.2d 664, 150 N.Y.S.2d 29, 133 N.E.2d 516 (N.Y. 1956)
• Parties: , 133 N.E.2d 516 PEOPLE, Appellant, v. John O. STRATTON, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 29

150 N.Y.S.2d 29

1 N.Y.2d 664, 133 N.E.2d 516

PEOPLE, Appellant, v.John O. STRATTON, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 17, 1956.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 286 App.Div. 323, 143 N.Y.S.2d 362.

Motorist was convicted under the Penal Law,Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 1053-a of criminal negligence for causing the death of a pedestrian by striking her with his automobile while he was allegedly intoxicated.

The County Court, Broome County, Robert O. Brink, J., entered judgment on March 30, 1954, and the motorist appealed.

The Appellate Division, 134 N.Y.S.2d 188, granted motion for extension of time within which to perfect appeal.

The Appellate Division, 136 N.Y.S.2d 383, granted motion to enlarge time for argument of appeal.

The Appellate Division, 139 N.Y.S.2d 264, granted motion to enlarge time of appellant to prosecute and argue appeal.

The Appellate Division, 286 App.Div. 323, 143 N.Y.S.2d 362, reversed the judgment, ordered a new trial, and held that it was reversible error to permit physician to testify that he requested permission of motorist to take a specimen of his blood to determine alcoholic content and that motorist refused permission.

The People of the State of New York appealed to the Court of Appeals, and a motion was made for enlargement of time.

The Court of Appeals, 309 N.Y. 846, 130 N.E.2d 646, granted motion for enlargement of time and set the case down for argument during the last week of the November, 1955, session of the Court of Appeals.

A further motion for enlargement of time was made, and the Court of Appeals, 309 N.Y. 863, 130 N.E.2d 915, granted the motion and provided that briefs, if any, of the People of the State of New York should be served and filed no later than December 15, 1955, and set the case down for argument during the January, 1956, session of the Court of Appeals.

The People of the State of New York contended on appeal to the Court of Appeals that rights of motorist were not violated by permitting the People's witness to testify that motorist was given an opportunity for a blood test, and that the People's summation was a fair and proper comment on issues raised, and that if there was any error, it was technical error not affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and should be disregarded on appeal in accordance with the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, § 542, and that criminal negligence of motorist was proved beyond a reasonable...