Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People of the State of New York, Dkt. C/ Respondent, v. James Scullion, Defendant–Appellant.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ann M. Donnelly, J.), rendered November 18, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of driving while ability impaired, and sentencing him to a conditional discharge for a period of one year and a $400 fine, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting a videotape of defendant performing coordination tests. Although the police officer who administered the tests did not testify, the videotape was authenticated by the arresting officer, who was a witness to the recorded events (see People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84 [1999] ). Since no testimony was elicited regarding the conclusion to be drawn from the tests, or what the person administering the tests looked for in determining whether or not the arrestee was intoxicated, the reliability of the tests and whether the officer utilized the proper protocols in administering the tests were not in issue. Instead, the video was admitted solely to show how defendant appeared on the night of his arrest.
Similarly, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for a missing witness charge as to the officer who administered the coordination tests. Given the testimony of the arresting officer concerning objective indicia of defendant's intoxication, without reference to defendant's test performance, the second officer had no material, noncumulative testimony to offer. Accordingly, a missing witness charge was not warranted (see generally People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427 [1986] ).
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 601 7940 3 10
Decided: March 24, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)