People v. Whitney
| Citation | 53 Misc.2d 977,280 N.Y.S.2d 729 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Richard K. WHITNEY, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1967 |
| Court | New York Court of Special Sessions |
James E. Cooney, Caledonia, for defendant.
FACTS
Trial was had for violation of Sec. 1180(b) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York, on the evening of March 17th, 1967. The
People's case was represented by Trooper Hofmann, who was the arresting officer. The sole proof offered by the People was the expert testimony of the arresting officer, properly qualified, that in his opinion the defendant was proceeding on N Y S Route 19, in the Town of Pavilion, at a rate of 75 miles per hour in a 50 M P H area. An attempt by the arresting officer to have a calibration certificate admitted into evidence was denied because no proper foundation was offered. The officer did not testify as to any speedometer reading. Defendant moved for dismissal on the grounds that proof was insufficient, and did not establish defendant's guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. Decision was reserved.
Hon. Henry B. Wright, Presiding: The question before the Court is whether the opinion evidence of the arresting officer as to speed, where he properly qualified himself, is alone sufficient to sustain conviction, with no other or further corroborative evidence?
One of the leading Court of Appeals cases is People v. Heyser, 1957, 2 N.Y.2d 390, 161 N.Y.S.2d 36, 141 N.E.2d 553. This is the case that established that the reading of an untested speedometer when accompanied by the opinion evidence of an officer properly qualified as an expert, was sufficient. The exact words of Judge Froessel are (p. 394, 161 N.Y.S.2d p. 38, 141 N.E.2d p. 555): 'On the record presently before us, considering particularly that the patrolman had adequate opportunity for observation and that, out of a long, qualified and tested experience, he estimated that defendant was proceeding at 20 m.p.h. over the speed limit, Or half again as fast as he was permitted to by law * * * we are of the opinion that this evidence together with that of the speedometer is sufficient to sustain this conviction.'
The case of People v. Magri, 1958, 3 N.Y.2d 562, 170 N.Y.S.2d 335, 147 N.E.2d 728, was the highest Court's decision that the use of radar had become sufficiently established so that it would not be necessary on each trial to require expert testimony as to the nature, function and scientific principals underlying its use. This case is referred to because proper testing of the radar was not established on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helfond v. Helfond
... ... In People v. Heine, 12 A.D.2d 36, at p. 39, 208 N.Y.S.2d 188, at p. 190, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 925, 217 N.Y.S.2d 93, 176 N.E.2d 102, the Appellate Division, Second ... ...
-
People v. Olsen
...experienced officers. This basis is wholly insufficient in the light of the Court of Appeals decision. See also People v. Whitney, 53 Misc.2d 977, 978, 280 N.Y.S.2d 729, 730. Upon the return as filed it is the determination of this court upon the authority of the Court of Appeals that there......