People v. Grogan, 26 N.Y.2d 137 (1970)

A statute requiring drivers to maintain an appropriate reduced speed when facing hazards is constitutional if it incorporates a standard of reasonableness, and an intermediate appellate court can order a new trial if it reverses a lower court’s decision on both law and facts.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(c) for failing to reduce speed appropriately on a curve. The County Court reversed, finding the statute unconstitutionally vague and the evidence insufficient. The Court of Appeals held that § 1180(c) is constitutional because it incorporates the reasonableness standard of § 1180(a). Furthermore, the Court held that because the County Court’s reversal was based on both legal and factual grounds, the proper remedy was to order a new trial, not to dismiss the charges. The Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order and remanded for a new trial.

Facts

The defendant was driving a vehicle that ran off the road on a curve. A passenger in the car testified that the speedometer read approximately 40 miles per hour and that there was no oncoming car. The defendant claimed he swerved to avoid an oncoming car. There was evidence showing the car traveled 188 feet off the road and overturned several times.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted in the Court of Special Sessions of the Town of Rotterdam. The Schenectady County Court reversed the conviction, holding that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(c) was unconstitutionally vague and that the People had failed to prove their case. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether subdivision (c) of section 1180 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law is unconstitutionally vague.

2. Whether the County Court erred in dismissing the information against the defendant after determining the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Holding

1. No, because subdivision (c) incorporates the reasonableness standard of subdivision (a), which the Court has previously found to be constitutional.

2. Yes, because the County Court’s reversal was based on both legal and factual grounds, thus requiring a new trial rather than a dismissal.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that subdivision (c) of section 1180 is not unconstitutionally vague because it is explicitly tied to the reasonableness standard established in subdivision (a). Subdivision (c) merely provides specific examples of situations in which a reduced speed may be necessary to comply with the basic rule of reasonable and prudent driving. The Court stated, “The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subdivision (a) of this section, drive at an appropriate reduced speed” (emphasis in original). The court held that the situations outlined in subdivision (c), such as approaching curves or intersections, were examples of “actual and potential hazards then existing” as described in subdivision (a). Regarding the County Court’s dismissal, the Court of Appeals emphasized the distinction between a reversal based solely on a failure of proof (which would preclude a new trial) and a reversal based on both law and fact. Because the County Court found both the statute unconstitutional and the evidence insufficient, the proper course of action was to order a new trial. As the court noted, “Inasmuch as the reversal of the County Court was also on the facts, the County Court could not dismiss but was obliged to grant a new trial.” The Court emphasized that it had the power to review, as the County Court had erroneously dismissed the information. The court further reasoned that based on witness testimony and circumstantial evidence (the car running off the road), a question of fact existed regarding the defendant’s guilt, which should be resolved at a new trial.