New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Alvarez

  • People v. Alvarez, 19 N.Y.3d 78 (2012): Preservation Requirement for Public Trial Violations

    People v. Alvarez, 19 N.Y.3d 78 (2012)

    A defendant must preserve the argument that they were deprived of the right to a public trial when family members were excluded from the courtroom during voir dire by raising a timely objection; otherwise, the claim is waived on appeal.

    Summary

    These consolidated appeals address whether a defendant must preserve the argument that his right to a public trial was violated when family members were excluded from the courtroom during voir dire. In Alvarez, defense counsel moved for a mistrial after discovering the defendant’s parents were excluded during jury selection. In George, defense counsel did not object when the court stated spectators might be asked to leave during jury selection. The New York Court of Appeals held that preservation is required. The Court affirmed in George because the issue was unpreserved, but reversed in Alvarez and remitted for a new trial because the issue was adequately preserved by a timely objection and motion for mistrial.

    Facts

    Alvarez: Alvarez was charged with weapon possession. Before trial, Alvarez declined a plea offer after discussing it with his mother. During jury selection, Alvarez’s parents were excluded from the courtroom. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the denial of a public trial, which the court denied, stating the courtroom was filled with prospective jurors and family members are usually asked to step out initially.

    George: George was charged with robbery and larceny. Prior to jury selection, the court stated that spectators might have to leave when potential jurors entered due to limited seating. Defense counsel thanked the judge without objecting. After preliminary instructions, some prospective jurors were excused, and the court asked remaining jurors to move forward, freeing seats for the public and instructing a court officer to inform spectators they could re-enter.

    Procedural History

    Alvarez: The Appellate Division modified the conviction, vacating convictions for criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, but otherwise affirmed, finding the public trial argument unpreserved and without merit. Leave to appeal was granted. The Court of Appeals reversed.

    George: The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding the public trial argument unpreserved and without merit. Leave to appeal was granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a defendant must preserve an objection to the exclusion of family members from the courtroom during voir dire to raise a public trial violation on appeal.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because errors of constitutional dimension, including the right to a public trial, must be preserved with a timely objection.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The right to a public trial extends to voir dire. While proceedings may be closed when necessary to protect an overriding interest, the court must consider alternatives to closure. The Court relied on Presley v. Georgia, which held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a public trial during voir dire, and trial courts must consider alternatives to closure, even if the parties do not offer them. However, Presley did not address the preservation requirement. The Court stated, “Bringing a public trial violation to a judge’s attention in the first instance will ensure the timely opportunity to correct such errors.” Since George raised no objection, his claim was unpreserved. In Alvarez, the defense counsel’s protest immediately after the violation was sufficient to preserve the issue. The appropriate remedy would have been to grant a mistrial and restart jury selection. The Court emphasized that preservation is crucial to give the trial court an opportunity to address and correct the error promptly.

  • People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375 (1987): State Constitution and Preservation of Breath Samples

    People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375 (1987)

    The Due Process Clause of the New York State Constitution does not require police to collect and preserve a second breath sample during a DWI arrest for later independent testing by the defendant.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether the New York State Constitution requires police to preserve a second breath sample for defendants in drunk driving cases, allowing for independent testing. The Court of Appeals held that it does not, aligning with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in California v. Trombetta. The court reasoned that the reliability of breathalyzer tests is established, and defendants have sufficient alternative means to challenge test results, such as examining the machine, reviewing records, and questioning the administering officer. The court emphasized that a defendant can obtain an additional chemical test by their own physician.

    Facts

    Defendants were arrested for drunk driving. Police administered a single breathalyzer test using a Smith & Wesson Model 900A, which indicated a blood alcohol content exceeding the legal limit. The administration of the test destroyed the breath sample.

    Procedural History

    Defendants moved to suppress the breathalyzer results, arguing the destruction of the sample violated the New York State Constitution. The hearing court granted the motion, but the Appellate Term reversed, denying the suppression motions. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Due Process Clause of the New York State Constitution requires police to take and preserve a second breath sample for later independent testing by a defendant charged with driving while intoxicated, when the initial test necessarily destroys the sample.

    Holding

    No, because the reliability of breathalyzer tests is generally established, and defendants have adequate alternative means to challenge the results and to obtain additional testing.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning of California v. Trombetta as a matter of state constitutional law. The court acknowledged its independence in interpreting the New York Constitution but found no compelling reason to depart from the Supreme Court’s analysis. While New York provides strong protections for defendants’ access to information, these protections do not require the police to affirmatively gather evidence for the accused. The court emphasized that breathalyzers are scientifically reliable, and a positive test only establishes a prima facie case. Defendants can challenge the test’s accuracy by questioning the machine’s calibration, the chemicals used, or the administrator’s competence. The court also noted that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(8) grants defendants the right to an independent chemical test by a personal physician, further mitigating any due process concerns. The court reaffirmed its long-standing conclusion that “the scientific reliability of breathalyzers in general is no longer open to question” (citing People v. Mertz, 68 NY2d 136, 148). The Court found that the Supreme Court’s conclusions in Trombetta were consonant with New York State law and interests and that the analysis was correct and provides a fair and proper rule under the State Constitution.

  • People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375 (1987): Foundation Required for Breathalyzer Test Results

    People v. Alvarez, 70 N.Y.2d 375 (1987)

    To admit breathalyzer test results in a Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 prosecution, the prosecution must present evidence allowing a reasonable fact-finder to conclude the testing device was in proper working order and that the chemicals used were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions.

    Summary

    Alvarez was convicted of driving while intoxicated. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the breathalyzer test results were improperly admitted. The Court found the prosecution failed to establish a proper foundation for the breathalyzer results by not presenting any evidence the machine was functioning accurately, or the chemicals were properly constituted. Proof the operator was certified or that the defendant appeared intoxicated was insufficient. The case clarifies foundational requirements for admitting breathalyzer evidence, emphasizing the need to prove the machine’s accuracy, not just the operator’s certification or the defendant’s apparent intoxication.

    Facts

    The defendant, Alvarez, was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192. At trial, the prosecution introduced breathalyzer test results to establish the defendant’s blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit. The prosecution offered proof that the test operator was certified. The arresting officers testified as to the defendant’s behavior and field sobriety test results.

    Procedural History

    The trial court admitted the breathalyzer test results. The defendant was convicted. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the prosecution laid a sufficient foundation for the admission of breathalyzer test results by offering proof that the test operator was certified and presenting observations of the arresting officers and field sobriety test results, without offering any evidence the breathalyzer machine was in proper working order or that properly constituted chemicals were used.

    Holding

    No, because the People must introduce evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the testing device was in proper working order and that the chemicals used in conducting the test were of the proper kind and mixed in the proper proportions.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals emphasized that admitting breathalyzer results requires a foundational showing that the testing device was functioning accurately. Citing prior case law, the Court reiterated the necessity of demonstrating both the machine’s proper working order and the appropriate constitution of the chemicals used. Proof of the operator’s certification, while relevant to whether the test was properly administered, does not establish the machine’s accuracy. The Court noted that “proof that the test operator was certified by the Health Department to conduct breathalyzer tests, while permitting the inference that the test was properly given (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 [9]; see, People v Mertz, 68 NY2d 136) is not probative of the distinct foundational requirement concerning the accuracy of the machine.” Similarly, observations of the defendant’s intoxication, while relevant to whether the defendant was impaired, are not probative of the breathalyzer’s accuracy in measuring blood alcohol content. The Court concluded that, lacking any evidence supporting the breathalyzer’s accuracy, the test results were inadmissible, warranting a new trial. The Court explicitly declined to define the exact nature or quantity of proof required, as the record was completely devoid of such evidence.