From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 31, 1992
179 A.D.2d 1060 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

January 31, 1992

Appeal from the Seneca County Court, Falvey, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Callahan, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated based upon the uncontroverted testimony of the arresting police officer, who testified that defendant had been driving erratically, that he had the odor of alcohol on his breath, that defendant's eyes were watery and bloodshot, that the pupils of his eyes were dilated, that his speech was slow and slurred, that he could not recite the alphabet or count, that defendant had difficulty removing his driver's license from his wallet, that he had admitted to having been drinking beer and that defendant could not walk a straight line, touch his index finger to his nose or tie his shoelaces. Thus, we reject defendant's contention that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction (see, People v Cole, 178 A.D.2d 1016; People v. DeBlase, 142 A.D.2d 926; People v Ottomanelli, 107 A.D.2d 212, 217, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 617; see also, People v. Le Beau, 134 A.D.2d 929).

We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 31, 1992
179 A.D.2d 1060 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RODNEY K. SMITH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jan 31, 1992

Citations

179 A.D.2d 1060 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
579 N.Y.S.2d 292

Citing Cases

People v. Pierson

Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of driving while intoxicated as a felony. Viewing…

People v. O'Meara

Memorandum: The testimony of the three police officers was sufficient to establish that defendant was…