People v. Schroeder, 24 N.Y.3d 507 (2014)
In a prosecution for driving while intoxicated (DWI), expert testimony estimating the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC) is not considered “prima facie evidence” under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195(2), but the jury may consider such evidence when determining intoxication.
Summary
The case clarifies the admissibility and probative value of expert testimony regarding blood alcohol content (BAC) in DWI cases. The defendant, convicted of common law DWI, appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that expert testimony estimating her BAC below the legal limit constituted “prima facie evidence” of non-intoxication. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that only BAC results from chemical tests, not expert opinions, are entitled to the statutory “prima facie evidence” weight. However, the Court also noted that a defendant is entitled, upon request, to an instruction that if the jury believes the expert’s estimation of BAC was below the legal limit, the jury may consider that fact when determining whether the defendant was intoxicated.
Facts
The defendant was stopped for speeding and subsequently given a breathalyzer test, which showed a BAC of .09%. At trial, the prosecution presented this evidence along with the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s behavior (smell of alcohol, glassy eyes, failed field sobriety tests). The defense presented expert testimony from a pharmacologist who opined, based on the defendant’s testimony, that her BAC at the time of the stop was between .03% and .04%.
Procedural History
The defendant was acquitted of per se DWI but convicted of common law DWI in Town Court. The County Court affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a defense expert’s testimony estimating the defendant’s BAC below the statutory threshold constitutes “prima facie evidence” that the defendant was not intoxicated, thus entitling the defendant to a corresponding jury instruction.
Holding
No, because Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195(2) explicitly limits the “prima facie evidence” effect to BAC results obtained from chemical tests administered pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court based its reasoning on a strict interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195, which states that the specified probative value (including “prima facie evidence”) applies to “evidence of blood-alcohol content, as determined by such tests.” The Court emphasized that “such tests” refers to chemical tests administered under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194. Because the defense expert’s testimony was an opinion, not a chemical test result, it did not qualify for the statutory “prima facie evidence” weight.
However, the Court clarified that juries should not be kept unaware of the BAC thresholds specified in the statute. The Court suggested that the jury should be instructed that if they find the defendant’s BAC was below 0.08%, based on the expert’s testimony, they *may* find that she was not in an intoxicated condition, although they are not required to do so. The Court highlighted the difference between this “if you find” instruction and the “prima facie evidence” charge, explaining that the former allows the jury to evaluate the evidence for itself, while the latter improperly instructs the jury on the weight to be given to the evidence.
The Court states, “The difference between our ‘if you find’ formulation and the ‘prima facie evidence’ charge that defendant here requested is substantive, not just verbal. The ‘prima facie’ charge instructs the jury on the weight to be given certain evidence — an instruction that is appropriate only when the evidence consists of chemical tests. The ‘if you find’ charge allows the jury to evaluate the evidence for itself — i.e., lets it choose to believe the expert or not — but instructs it as to the inferences it may draw after it has made that evaluation.”
In effect, the court allows the jury to consider expert testimony about BAC, but clarifies that it does not carry the same statutory weight as a chemical test. This permits the defense to present evidence challenging intoxication without mandating a specific inference from that evidence, leaving the jury to determine the credibility and impact of the expert’s opinion.