People v. Weale
| Decision Date | 01 February 1967 |
| Citation | 52 Misc.2d 889,277 N.Y.S.2d 363 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger A. WEALE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Frederick J. DeFilippo, Elmira, for appellant.
Frederick M. Hunt, Dist. Atty., Yates County, for respondent.
Defendant-appellant appeals from a speeding conviction (sec. 1180(d), Vehicle and Traffic Law, formerly, sec. 1180(b), par. 3, Vehicle and Traffic Law) rendered in the Court of Special Sessions of the Village of Dundee, the Honorable Douglas B. Miles, Justice of the Peace, presiding, on November 15, 1966, whereby defendant was found guilty of violating an ordinance governing the speed of vehicles, in that he was operating his automobile at a rate of 50 miles per hour in a 30 mile-per-hour zone on October 31, 1966.
Defendant contends upon this appeal the trial court erred in admitting the arresting officer's testimony concerning the testing of the speedometer in his patrol car by observation of alleged speed of the same while driven by another person through a radar test run. This observation the defendant asserts was 'hearsay' (for the officer learned of the car's speed during such 'test run' via radio) and was, therefore, at best, ineffective as a test, and at the worst, no test at all.
The defendant apparently contends his conviction must be reversed because the court upon trial permitted testimony of the officer's observations of an 'untested' speedometer. Had the speedometer reading been the only proof upon trial defendant's assertion of error might well be valid. The testing (so-called) of the patrol car's speedometer left much to be desired. But the proof in this case also included independent estimates of the defendant's speed by two qualified witnesses. Defendant assigns no error to the admission of such testimony. We have, therefore, admissible evidence of an untested speedometer (People v. Marsellus, 2 N.Y.2d 653, 655, 163 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2, 143 N.E.2d 1, 2) which, standing alone would not support conviction, but which, when coupled to the testimony of 'qualified observers' was sufficient upon the law and the facts to sustain the conviction. (People v. Dusing, 5 N.Y.2d 126, 181 N.Y.S.2d 493, 155 N.E.2d 393).
Defendant also contends the information is defective and the conviction a nullity in establishing a violation of former section 1180(b), par. 3, of the Vehicle and Traffic Law when, as a matter of fact, the paragraph sequence of the 'speeding' provision (sec. 1180, Vehicle and Traffic Law) had been changed by the legislature to omit subdivision (b) paragraphs 1 and 2 and re-designate former paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) simply as subdivision (d) (Laws of 1966, Chap. 950, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1966). Thus the information, if properly amended upon trial, should have read 'in violation of Sec. 1180(d), Vehicle and Traffic Law'. With the exception of two numerical references to statutory enabling provisions the wording of paragraph 3 (former designation) and subdivision (d) (new designation) remains identical.
Despite the renumbering (or relettering)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Morris
... ... In either partial or complete opposition to these cases, the Corporation Counsel's offices cites People v. Levin, 93 Misc.2d 106, 402 N.Y.S.2d 324 (1978), People v. Blattman, 50 Misc.2d 606, 270 N.Y.S.2d 903 (1966), People v. Weale, 52 Misc.2d 889, 277 N.Y.S.2d 363 (1967), and People v. Demar, 65 Misc.2d 465, 317 N.Y.S.2d 676 (1970) ... It is obvious from reading Section 1180(d) of the VTL that it contemplates by general reference and incorporates any and all local ordinances establishing speed limits within ... ...
-
McBride v. State
... ... 'The significant people in this boy's life are a mother who was socially delinquent and two older sisters who very early showed delinquent behavior. It seems incredible ... ...
-
People v. Kramer
... ... People v. Staples, 5 Misc.2d 619, 162 N.Y.S.2d 131. I would believe one of the cardinal rules to be that a defendant must be fully apprised of the facts and the law which he is being accused of violating ... In People v. Weale, 52 Misc.2d 889, 277 N.Y.S.2d 363, a defendant was charged and found guilty of violating an ORDINANCE governing speed of vehicles, though charged in the information with a violation of Section 1180, paragraph 3 of subdivision (b), when in fact that particular section and subdivision was no longer ... ...