Case ID: misc3d_6/html/0030-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[789 NYS2d 797]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James R. Tompkins, Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    October 22, 2004
    APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      James R. Tompkins, appellant pro se.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, accusatory instrument dismissed and fine, if paid, remitted.

Defendant was charged with driving a vehicle which had excessively tinted side windows (see Vehicle and Traffic Law § 375 [12-a] [b]). At trial, the officer testified that he estimated that the windows only permitted about 15% light transmittance. Although such a percentage of light transmittance is below the legal threshold (id.), the officer did not establish that he possessed any experience in visually determining the amount of light transmitted through a window, or some other satisfactory reason or basis, such as a “tint-meter,” for his opinion. As a result, the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (cf. People v Olsen, 22 NY2d 230 [1968]). Although defendant did not properly preserve his objection to the sufficiency of the evidence, we nevertheless review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Consequently, we do not pass on defendant’s remaining contentions.

McCabe, P.J., Rudolph and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.