Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James R. Tompkins, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2004-10-22
Citations: 6 Misc. 3d 30
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James R. Tompkins, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 30–31

Head Matter:
[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:
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.