| People v Collins |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 02021 [126 AD3d 1132] |
| March 12, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert F. Collins, Appellant. |
G. Scott Walling, Schenectady, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel),for respondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan,J.), rendered August 22, 2012, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime ofdriving while intoxicated and the violations of failure to obey a police officer, speedingand unlawful possession of marihuana.
In the early morning hours of July 3, 2011, two state troopers observed defendantspeeding in the Town of Beekmantown, Clinton County. When the troopers attempted tostop him, defendant proceeded to drive some distance before turning down a driveway.He then exited the vehicle and fled on foot into the woods. During the pursuit, one of thetroopers deployed his taser into defendant's back for a period of six seconds in order toimmobilize him. Defendant was taken to the police station where he failed a number offield sobriety tests and refused to take a breathalyzer test.
Defendant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated (hereinafterDWI), failure to obey a police officer, resisting arrest, speeding and unlawful possessionof marihuana. Prior to trial, County Court denied defendant's request to admit intoevidence a July 4, 2011 medical record which indicated, among other things, thatdefendant had been tased and presented with a concussion, contusions and an injury tohis eye reportedly caused by a branch. At trial, the People presented an expert witnesswho testified as to taser instruction and exposure. Defendant was convicted by a jury ofall counts except resisting arrest, and sentenced to a term of incarceration. Heappeals.
[*2] Defendant's sole argument onappeal is that County Court improperly excluded his hospital records from evidence."Trial courts are accorded wide discretion in making evidentiary rulings and, absent anabuse of discretion, those rulings should not be disturbed on appeal" (People vCarroll, 95 NY2d 375, 385 [2000]; accord People v Monk, 57 AD3d 1497, 1498 [2008], lvdenied 12 NY3d 785 [2009]; see People v Aska, 91 NY2d 979, 981 [1998];People v Shepherd, 83AD3d 1298, 1299 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 809 [2011]). In support of histheory that his failure of the field sobriety tests was caused by his medical ailments asopposed to intoxication, defendant sought the admission of his hospitalrecords—unaccompanied by any testimony from a medical professional. CountyCourt denied the relief, concluding that defendant's hospital records, while generallyadmissible pursuant to CPLR 4518, would lead the jury to speculate as to defendant'smedical condition unless a medical professional offered an explanation. The court didpermit defendant to testify regarding his physical condition and hospital treatment, and tointroduce photographs of his injuries at trial (compare People v Jessamy, 282AD2d 288, 289 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 863 [2001]). Inasmuch as the hospitalrecords, without explanatory testimony, would have required the jury to speculate as towhether defendant's injuries caused him to fail the sobriety tests, we find that the courtproperly excluded them (see People v Monk, 57 AD3d at 1498; People v Bynum, 33 AD3d376, 377 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 924 [2006]; People v Wojes, 306AD2d 754, 757 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 600 [2003]; People vJessamy, 282 AD2d at 289; People v Ortiz, 259 AD2d 271, 272 [1999],lv denied 93 NY2d 901 [1999]).[FN*]
Lahtinen, McCarthy and Lynch, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote *:To the extent thatdefendant now argues that the medical records were also offered to impeach thetestimony of the troopers and that County Court's error was one of constitutionaldimension, these arguments were not preserved for our review and, in any event, arewithout merit (see People v Young, 295 AD2d 631, 631-632 [2002], lvdenied 99 NY2d 541 [2002]; People v Ortiz, 259 AD2d at 272).