People v. Bakker, 28 N.Y.2d 49 (1971)

To prove a speeding violation under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(b), the prosecution must show that a higher speed limit was not authorized for the location, and a speedometer deviation record is admissible as a business record if a proper foundation is laid.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of speeding. The County Court reversed, holding the prosecution failed to prove a higher speed limit wasn’t authorized and that a speedometer deviation record was improperly admitted. The Court of Appeals reversed the County Court, holding that the prosecution met its burden by presenting evidence that no higher speed limit had been established and that the speedometer deviation record was admissible as a business record, provided a proper foundation was laid to establish its reliability.

Facts

A State Trooper clocked the defendant driving 65 miles per hour in a 50-mile-per-hour zone on Route 13 in the Village of Cayuga Heights. At trial, the Trooper testified to the defendant’s speed. The People also introduced a speedometer deviation record to prove the reliability of the speedometer used to clock the defendant’s speed. The defendant did not object to the admission of the speedometer deviation record at trial.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of speeding in a Court of Special Sessions. The County Court reversed the conviction, finding that the prosecution failed to disprove the applicability of an exception to the general speed limit and that the speedometer deviation record was improperly admitted. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the prosecution must present proof of the absence of any signs allowing a speed in excess of 50 miles per hour to establish a violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(b).
2. Whether a speedometer deviation record is admissible as evidence to prove the reliability of the speedometer used to clock the defendant’s speed.

Holding

1. No, because the prosecution is not required to prove the absence of signs but only that higher limits have not been promulgated. The court is required to take judicial notice of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations, so if that compilation shows no higher speed limit has been authorized for the location, the prosecution has met its burden.
2. Yes, because a speedometer deviation record is admissible as a business record under CPLR 4518(a), provided an appropriate foundation is laid demonstrating that the record was made in the regular course of business and that it was the regular course of business to make such a record.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the first issue, the court reasoned that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180(b) prohibits driving in excess of 50 miles per hour except when higher speed limits have been established. The court noted that while Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1620(a) states that the absence of signs indicating a higher speed limit is presumptive evidence that the Department of Transportation has not established a higher limit, this is not the only way to prove that no higher limits have been authorized. The court emphasized that under CPLR 4511(a), courts must take judicial notice of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations. Since this compilation listed no changes to the 50-mile-per-hour speed limit for the Village of Cayuga Heights, the prosecution met its burden of proof.

Regarding the second issue, the court reasoned that while the defendant did not object to the introduction of the speedometer deviation record at trial, the court would address the issue for guidance. The court determined that the record is considered hearsay but admissible under the business entry exception to the hearsay rule. CPLR 4518(a) allows the admission of records made in the regular course of business if it was the regular course of such business to make such a record. The court distinguished People v. Grant, stating, “Of course, records prepared solely for the purpose of litigation should be excluded… However, if there are other business reasons which require the records to be made, they should be admissible.” The court found that speedometer tests are often made at regularly scheduled intervals and records are kept merely as memorials of the fact that tests were made and the results. Therefore, the records are admissible as they were not made solely for litigation.

The court concluded that the County Court’s order should be reversed and the case remitted for determination of the factual questions.