You are here: / / TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER...
,

TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE.

The Court of Appeals determined the testimony of an officer (Mercado) who was present throughout the DWI breathalyzer test process administered by another officer (Harriman) did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Harriman had retired and moved out of state by the time of defendant’s trial:

The only step in the testing process that the Appellate Term found Mercado did not personally perform or observe, and the sole stated basis for that court finding a Confrontation Clause violation, was verification of the simulator solution temperature as displayed on the machine. Inasmuch as the written 13-step checklist completed by Harriman was not admitted into evidence, no testimonial statement by a nontestifying witness concerning the temperature — or any aspect of the testing procedure — was used against defendant. Thus, any argument as to Mercado’s failure to observe the temperature reading would merely relate to whether there was a proper foundation for his testimony, which would not implicate a Confrontation Clause violation … . However, to the extent that the Appellate Term based its decision on the failure of an “essential” step in the testing procedure, the trial record contradicts that court’s conclusion that there was an absence of evidence that the machine will shut itself down and fail to perform the test if the temperature is outside the proper range … . * * *

Mercado observed Harriman perform all of the steps on the checklist and saw the breathalyzer machine print out the results. Based upon his personal observations, Mercado — as a trained and certified operator who was present for the entire testing protocol — was a suitable witness to testify about the testing procedure and results in defendant’s test. Inasmuch as Mercado testified as to his own observations, not as a surrogate for Harriman, there was no Confrontation Clause violation. Any alleged irregularities concerning the testing procedure would relate to the weight of Mercado’s testimony, not its admissibility … . People v Hao Lin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01253, CtApp 2-16-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/CONFRONTATION CLAUSE (DWI, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (BREATHALYZER, TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)/BREATHALYZER (DWI, (TESTIMONY BY OFFICER WHO WAS PRESENT BUT DID NOT ADMINISTER THE DWI BREATHALYZER TEST DID NOT VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COKE OVENS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF STEEL WERE NOT PRODUCTS TRIGGERING THE DUTY TO WARN OF THE HAZARDS OF BREATHING EMISSIONS FROM THE OVENS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
Catheter, Although Deliberately Inserted During Surgery for Temporary Monitoring Purposes, Was a “Foreign Object” Within the Meaning of CPLR 214-a—Action Brought Within One Year of the Discovery of the Catheter (22 Years after Insertion) Was Timely
PETITIONER, THE PRESIDENT AND MAJORITY STOCK HOLDER OF A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, WAS THE “PERSON RESPONSIBLE” FOR COLLECTING AND PAYING EMPLOYEE WITHHOLDING TAXES; TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​
Fact that Property Has a Use “Auxiliary or Incidental to the Main Exempt Purpose” Does Not Defeat the Real Property Tax Exemption Under RPTL 420-a
HEALTH INSURANCE CARRIER WHICH ERRONEOUSLY PAID INJURED PARTY’S NO-FAULT BENEFITS CAN NOT RECOVER FROM THE NO-FAULT CARRIER.
POLICEMAN AND FIREFIGHTER WERE INJURED BY RISKS INHERENT IN THEIR JOBS AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CHARGED WITH FIRST DEGREE ROBBERY, PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE THE BB GUN DISPLAYED DURING THE ROBBERY WAS NOT CAPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY; THEREFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE “DISPLAYED-WEAPON-COULD-NOT-CAUSE-DEATH-OR-SERIOUS-INJURY” AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS UNCONTROVERTED THAT DEFENDANT DISPLAYED A BB GUN, SECOND DEGREE ROBBERY WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE CHARGE (CT APP).
PURSUANT TO THE LOFT LAW AND THE REAL PROPERTY LAW, THE LANDLORD WAS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THE TENANCY AND REGAIN POSSESSION OF THE LOFT IN A HOLDOVER PROCEEDING (CT APP). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVER... STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ ANSWERS WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR SPOLIATION...