People v. DeBlase
Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3). On appeal, he claims that the trial court erred by considering the manner in which the accident occurred in arriving at the factual determination that he was intoxicated and not merely impaired. We disagree. The distinction between driving while impaired and driving while intoxicated is one of degree. "[I]ntoxication is a greater degree of impairment which is reached when the driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver” (People v Cruz, 48 NY2d
The court did not err by admitting evidence of oral statements made by the defendant prior to any Miranda warnings. The statements were made in response to investigatory questions at the scene of an accident and defendant was not in custody (People v Palmiere, 124 AD2d 1016). Aside from the Miranda issue, defendant raised no question regarding the voluntariness of these statements and thus we conclude that a CPL 710.30 notice was not required (People v Balschweit, 91 AD2d 1127; People v Christopher S., 126 Misc 2d 594). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.-driving while intoxicated, and another charge.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Denman, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.