People v. Hao Lin
46 Misc. 3d 20
N.Y. App. Term.2014Background
- People charged defendant with multiple traffic offenses including two counts of DWI (per se and common law), on January 2, 2008 after observed swerving and traffic infractions; BAC reported at .25 after breath test; Intoxilyzer 5000 tester unavailable, substituted by officer Mercado who testified about test observing; the test results were admitted without tester cross-examination; jury convicted DWI (2) and (3) and acquitted other counts; on appeal, evidence-related Confrontation Clause issue and sufficiency concerns were raised; the court reversed the per se DWI conviction and ordered a new trial, and also reversed the common-law DWI conviction due to tainted blood alcohol evidence; judgment reversed and remitted for new trial; other issues deemed nonpreserved or not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause requirement for tester cross-examination | Bullcoming standard requires tester or unavailable cross-exam opportunity | Deputy Mercado's testimony inadequately satisfies proximity and knowledge to cross-examine | Confrontation violation; new trial ordered for per se DWI |
| Effect of improper blood alcohol testimony tainting verdict | High BAC result improperly admitted | Evidence otherwise sufficient for guilt | Conviction for common-law DWI reversed; new trial ordered |
| Prosecutor's summation remarks | Trial unfair due to summation | Not specified as grounds for reversal | Not decisive; judgment reversed on other grounds |
| Preservation of repugnant verdict claim | Acquittal on DWI impaired vs. common-law DWI repugnant | Issue not preserved | Not addressed on the merits; not preserved for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimony vs. non-testimonial evidence framework)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (U.S. 2011) (testimonial/irrelevance of statements in emergency setting)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (2011) (unavailable tester cross-examination requirement for lab reports)
- People v. Pealer, 20 N.Y.3d 447 (N.Y. 2013) (breathalyzer maintenance and calibration not testimonial; business records exception)
- People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520 (N.Y. 1986) (foundational requirements for admitting blood alcohol test results)
- People v. Roberts, 66 A.D.3d 1135 (N.Y. 2009) (requisite cross-examination framework for test results)
- People v. Muhammad, 17 N.Y.3d 532 (N.Y. 2011) (preservation and repugnancy principles for verdicts)
- People v. Wells, 21 N.Y.3d 716 (N.Y. 2013) (assessment of harmless error where strongK evidence exists)