DWI / DUI

Published on: February 22, 2012

Court Resolves Custody Issue Surrounding DWI Arrest

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, an alcoholic father appealed that the court should grant him full custody of his child without any visitation rights to the mother. The mother was granted sole legal and physical custody with visitation to the father. The couple had been before the Family Court on numerous occasions in the course of which the father’s alcohol dependency had been a factor in visitation. He had previously been ordered to successfully complete alcohol treatment before unsupervised visitation would be allowed and was prohibited from consuming alcohol for 24 hours prior to or during visitation.

A few months after the order was entered, another series of proceedings were commenced between the couple after the mother refused to turn the child over for visitation one afternoon because the father showed up visibly intoxicated. The incident prompted the father to file violation and modification of custody petitions. The mother, in turn, filed a modification petition alleging that the father was once again consuming alcohol on a regular basis and seeking, among other relief, to suspend visitation pending successful alcohol treatment and a family offense petition, alleging that the father made repeated threats to remove the child from the state. In her modification petition, the mother also noted that the father had recently been arrested on another alcohol-related offense.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that based on records, the Family Court dismissed the father’s petitions for failure of proof and modified the prior order by directing him to undergo alcohol treatment and permitting supervised visitation on the condition of his active engagement in such treatment. It also denied a motion for a new trial.

Published on: February 22, 2012

Defendant Convicted of Manslaughter in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a pending motion of a man’s appeal to dismiss the charges against him. He seeks to dismiss the first count of accusation, murder in the second degree, the second count which is manslaughter in the second degree and all other counts of charges against him.

Based on the record, on the night of the incident, the man was operating his motor vehicle in an eastbound direction. It crossed the center line into the westbound lane of traffic then he collided with a westbound vehicle driven by a woman. As a result of the collision, a man seating on the front seat of the woman’s vehicle died. The grand jury returned a seven-count felony, charging the man with murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, criminal negligence homicide, two counts of misdemeanor, DWI and failure to keep right. Under the facts presented here, the distinction between the two types of homicides takes place in the context of a driving while intoxicated fatality case.

The analysis results from the man’s motion requesting that the court review the grand jury’s minutes of the proceedings to determine if the evidence presented was legally sufficient to sustain an indictment for depraved indifference murder and manslaughter in the second degree.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on Vehicuclar Manslaughter Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A driver from New York appealed when he was convicted of the crimes of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree and two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated) and the traffic infraction of failure to keep right.

In tne early morning, following an evening of drinking at a bar, the defendant commenced driving his car with one passenger in the front and the victim, who was acutely intoxicated in the back seat. Shortly afterwards, the defendant was involved in a single vehicle accident, in which his car struck a guide rail, crossed the road and went into a ditch. Although the front seat passengers were not seriously injured, the one seated at the back died. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the pathologist who conducted the autopsy concluded the cause of death was Aspiration gastric contents due to Concussion. A jury found the defendant guilty on all four counts. His subsequent sentence included a prison term, a fine and restitution for vehicular manslaughter, one year in jail on each of the driving while intoxicated counts, and a fine for failure to keep right. All the prison terms were concurrent.

Records revealed that the defendant argues that his conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree was not supported by legal sufficient evidence. When analyzing legal sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether there is a valid line of reasoning for a rational jury to have found beyond a reasonable doubt each of the essential elements of the crime. Vehicular manslaughter in the second degree is comprised of criminally negligent homicide in which the death is caused by an operator who is driving while intoxicated. The defendant contends that the evidence failed to establish criminal negligence and failed to show that his conduct caused the victim’s death.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Evidence Questioned in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested for DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) by a New York State trooper while on patrol in the City of Rome. The trooper observed a Chevrolet weaving within its lane and ½ car lengths into the other lane. The weather conditions were dry at that time. As the trooper proceeded westerly onto Rabbit Road he observed no violations, but after the vehicle turned left, he observed the vehicle go over into the other lane upon curves, and went over the center line once. The vehicle then proceeded where it was stopped at the direction of the officer. The testimony did not indicate at which time the defendant entered the City of Rome. Aside from the driver, there were two other occupants in the vehicle. The trooper approached the driver, identified as being the defendant, and noticed an average odor of alcohol upon his breath. The trooper asked the defendant to produce a license and registration which he did and then grabbed a cigarette from the passenger in the back seat.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the trooper asked the defendant to step out of the vehicle so that he could ask him questions. Upon stepping out of the vehicle, the defendant used the door for support. The trooper then asked the defendant where he had been drinking and he responded that he drank in a bar. The trooper also asked him how much had he drunk and the defendant replied that he drank only one and added that he had a couple of beers and shots. He was asked where he was coming from and replied that he went to a funeral before going to a friend’s place.

The defendant’s license identified him. The trooper then asked if he would perform certain field sobriety tests to which the defendant agreed. The trooper conducted a horizontal gaze nystagmus test and stated his background and experience in conducting such tests. A proper foundation was laid for conducting the test for field sobriety purposes. A walk and turn test was conducted but the defendant lost his balance twice by using his arms, did not walk heel-to-toe, made a wrong turn, and walked off the line. The defendant failed the one-leg-stand test by putting his leg down, and a sufficient foundation was established primarily through the cross-examination. On the finger-to-nose test the defendant missed his nose once. An alcohol sensor test was conducted to determine any consumption of alcohol and it was positive for such.

Published on: February 21, 2012

Court Rules on DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

A motion was filed by the defendant to declare the evidence presented by the police officer as inadmissible. The court denied the motion since the police officer had reasonable reason when he approached the defendant’s vehicle, according to a New York DWI Lawyer.

According to the officer, he saw the vehicle of the defendant parked along the crosswalk and approached it. The officer noted that the vehicle had people asleep inside. The officer woke the occupants of the car and asked for identification. He noted that the driver showed signs of intoxication such as glassy eyes and slurred speech. The officer asked the driver to take the sobriety test.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the officer in this case had probable cause to arrest the defendant if he was found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. According to the analysis of the court, the questions of the police officer were not interrogative in nature. Since this was the case, Miranda warnings are not required. During the arraignment of the defendant, he was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or DWI.

Published on: February 20, 2012

Witness Testimony Questioned in DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant in this case is charged with a DWI and violation of vehicle and traffic laws. A hearing was ordered by the court to determine if the blood test obtained from the defendant had led to the violation of vehicle and traffic laws.

The police officer who arrested the defendant was named the witness in the hearing. There were no witnesses for the side of the defendant. The court heard the testimony of the witness and examined the evidence presented before it.

According to a New York Criminal Lawyer, after the witness had testified, the court has found the witness to be credible since the witness is a veteran police officer. On the day of the arrest, the officer was on his usual patrol when he received a report concerning a vehicle accident. He arrived at the scene and found the two cars involved in the accident. He noted that one car had attained damages on its rear end. The other car had damages at the front. The police officer chose to approach the car with the front damage. The driver of the vehicle was the defendant in this case.

Published on: February 20, 2012

Court Rules on License Revocation Issue for DWI o

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested in November 14, 2007 for driving while intoxicated and his license was revoked. As part of his conviction, his driver’s license was revoked for six months. But because this conviction was the man’s first, he was able to join a rehabilitation program offered by the Department of Motor Vehicles.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that as part of the rehabilitation program, the man was issued a conditional license. This license imposed restrictions on him: he can only drive to and from work; he can only drive to the rehabilitation program and its related activities; he can only drive to and from school; and he can only drive between 12:00 noon and 3:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

On February 10, 2008, the man was arrested once more for driving while intoxicated. He was arrested at 1:04 p.m. He was with his girlfriend and upon his arrest he told the arresting police officer that he and his girlfriend came from a bar. He was charged for driving while intoxicated and other offenses. Under the indictment, he was charged with aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

Published on: February 20, 2012

Court Rules in Vehicular Manslaughter Case

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York City, a man was charged with four counts of manslaughter in the second degree, four counts of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree, two counts of DWI (driving while intoxicated), reckless endangerment in the second degree, driving with a suspended registration and various traffic infractions. A New York DWI Lawyer said that the charges arise out of a single-car collision that resulted in the death of three people, a pregnant woman and her son and the sister of the pregnant woman. Also at issue is whether the son, delivered by cesarean section after the death of the mother, was an additional fatality under the law. The defendant is alleged to have been driving while intoxicated and above the legal speed limit when he ran a red traffic signal and collided with the family crossing the intersection.

Records revealed that the defendant had the opportunity to examine the Grand Jury minutes and claims that the evidence before the Grand Jury is insufficient to support any of the charges of manslaughter in the second degree while conceding the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the charges of vehicular manslaughter involving the deaths of the three victims. The defendant claims, however, that none of the charges were sustained with regards to the son. He argues that he cannot be charged with the death of a child who was never legally alive.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that he also seeks a number of rulings to be disqualified prior to trial. He seeks to exclude the testimony of a lay witness who testified as to the speed at which his vehicle was traveling; the testimony of his alleged drinking prior to the collision; the prosecution from introducing evidence of the name and nature of the bar where he was said to have been drinking; and to exclude the testimony that two empty beer cans were recovered from his vehicle. He also seeks to disqualify the court from introducing evidence of his refusal to submit to a coordination test. In addition, he moves to suppress his statements allegedly made to a Police Captain.

Published on: February 19, 2012

Court Decides Issue of Probable Cause for DWI Stop

by Stephen Bilkis

The defendant was charged with DWI including various traffic violations. A suppression hearing was scheduled to determine if the statements admitted for evidence were allegedly given by the defendant. The hearing will also determine if the breath test results of the defendant will be placed under suppression.

The only witness in the hearing was the police officer who arrested the defendant for driving while intoxicated. The court was tasked to make a decision regarding the motion to suppress by reviewing the facts and the precedents of the case.

According to a New York Crirminal Lawyer, the police officer who arrested the defendant is an experienced female officer who already had several DWI arrests under her belt. On the day of the arrest, the female officer was on her usual patrol when she pulled over the defendant’s car. When the officer approached the car, she asked to see the license and registration. While the defendant produced the needed documents, the officer asked the defendant if he knew why she asked him to pull over. The defendant remarked that he was driving like an asshole.

Published on: February 18, 2012

Court Decides DWI Case

by Stephen Bilkis

According to a New York DWI Lawyer, the defendant has filed a motion to deny the request made by the prosecution that he should be sentenced as a felony offender for the first time. The defendant had given a guilty plea for attempting to sell illegal drugs. The defendant was convicted for assault charges which he admitted he was guilty. He was sentenced to a prison term of at least one or one and half years. The maximum sentence is four years. The defendant has already admitted that he was the same defendant who was initially charged for the first felony. The defendant has challenged the conviction made in his second conviction. The defendant contends that he received ineffective counsel from his lawyer.

The defendant presented a memorandum to support his motion. The letter memorandum contained an outline of the defendant’s case. It also includes information that the defendant had informed his lawyer about the facts of his alleged offenses. These offenses were the basis of his current assault conviction.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that the defendant further contends that his previous lawyer failed to present a DWI defense during his previous conviction. The defendant also challenged the prosecution that his guilty plea should be removed from the records since he was denied the effective counsel assistance. To support this statement, the defendant has submitted a letter from that lawyer who affirms the circumstances that are relevant to his guilty plea. The prosecution has opposed the motion of the defendant and filed a motion for the court to sentence him for his second felony conviction. It has been noted by the court that the defendant did not submit to a letter from the previous case’s lawyer that should have explained the circumstances involved.