People v. Van Buren, 77 N.Y.2d 879 (1991)

A certificate of conviction, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a prior conviction element of a felony driving while intoxicated (DWI) charge before a grand jury without additional evidence linking the defendant to the prior conviction.

Summary

Van Buren was indicted for felony DWI. The prosecution presented a certificate of conviction showing a “Robert L. Van Buren” had a prior DWI conviction within ten years. The defense moved to dismiss the felony count, arguing insufficient proof of the prior conviction. The County Court reduced the charge to misdemeanor DWI, finding no competent evidence identifying the defendant as the person named in the certificate. The Appellate Division reversed, but the Court of Appeals reversed again, holding that the certificate of conviction alone was insufficient to establish the prior conviction element of felony DWI without additional evidence linking the defendant to that prior conviction.

Facts

Defendant Van Buren was indicted for felony DWI. The prosecution presented evidence to the Grand Jury, including a certificate of conviction indicating that a “Robert L. Van Buren” had been convicted of DWI within the past 10 years in Genesee County. No other evidence was presented to establish that the defendant was the same Robert L. Van Buren named in the certificate.

Procedural History

The Genesee County Court granted the defendant’s motion to reduce the felony DWI charge to a misdemeanor, finding insufficient evidence of the predicate conviction. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, reinstating the felony DWI count. The New York Court of Appeals then reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstating the County Court’s decision to reduce the charge.

Issue(s)

Whether a certificate of conviction, without additional evidence linking the defendant to the prior conviction, is sufficient to establish the prior conviction element of a felony DWI charge before a grand jury.

Holding

No, because a certificate of conviction alone, without further connecting evidence, is insufficient to establish every element of the felony DWI offense, specifically the defendant’s identity as the person with the prior conviction.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals stated that CPL 190.65 requires that the evidence before the Grand Jury be legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case. CPL 70.10(1) defines legally sufficient evidence as “competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant’s commission thereof.” The court reasoned that the certificate of conviction only established that a person named Robert L. Van Buren had a prior DWI conviction. It did not, without more, prove that the *defendant* Robert L. Van Buren was the *same* person. The court emphasized that the certificate of conviction, standing alone, lacked the necessary connecting evidence to link the defendant to the prior conviction. As such, the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case for felony DWI, and the indictment was properly reduced. The court distinguished this case from People v. Vollick, 148 A.D.2d 950 (4th Dept. 1989), aff’d 75 N.Y.2d 877 (1990), without elaborating on the distinguishing facts.