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, etc., respondent, v. Arthur WOLTERS, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered November 16, 2004, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and unlawfully operating or driving a motor vehicle on a public highway, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.
The Supreme Court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence the affidavit of a nontestifying official from the Department of Motor Vehicles (see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177; People v. Pacer, 6 N.Y.3d 504, 814 N.Y.S.2d 575, 847 N.E.2d 1149; People v. Capellan, 6 Misc.3d 809, 812, 791 N.Y.S.2d 315). Without the affidavit, the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the defendant's guilt of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Perkins, 189 A.D.2d 830, 592 N.Y.S.2d 752). Inasmuch as the possibility remains that the People can present other evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case on that charge, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial, if the People be so advised (see People v. Pacer, supra; People v. Perkins, supra ). We note that if the Supreme Court, upon retrial, submits to the jury the lesser-included offense of unlawfully operating or driving a motor vehicle on a public highway, that count must be submitted in the alternative (see CPL 300.40 [3][b], 300.50).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's contentions that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 05, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)