People v. Prescott2/13/2001
Saunders, 85 NY2d, at 341, supra). Likewise, an attempt is legally cognizable where a statute penalizes certain core conduct, but includes as an aggravating factor that the defendant caused an unintended result (see, People v Fullan, 92 NY2d, at 693-694, supra; People v Miller, 87 NY2d, at 217-218, supra).
Driving while intoxicated appears to fit within the confines of Saunders, since it is aimed principally at conduct: operating a motor vehicle while "intoxicated." However, as the Saunders court acknowledged, other factors, including statutory and policy considerations, can help inform the "attempt" analysis (People v Saunders, 85 NY2d, at 342-343, supra). Here, we conclude that the Legislature did not contemplate criminal liability for attempted drunk driving . We reach that conclusion based on the comprehensive nature of article 31 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law and its discrete penalty scheme.
In the early 1980s, drunk driving became a dominant social issue. Drunk drivers were the leading cause of highway deaths in New York (see, Mem in Supp, Bill Jacket, L 1981, ch 910; see also, 1984 Report of the Assembly Commn. on Transp., Drunk Driving Reform in New York State: 1981-1984; Strategy, Results and Recommendations, at 1)). In response, the Legislature enacted a series of reforms (see, e.g., L 1981, ch 910; L 1981, ch 913; see also, Mem in Supp, Bill Jacket, L 1981, ch 910) and in 1988 consolidated and recodified pertinent provisions into a single article(see, L 1988, ch 47). Article 31 emerged as a tightly and carefully integrated statute the sole purpose of which is to address drunk driving.
The penalties for §1192 violations are specific; each offense is accorded its own criminal punishment (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law §1193 , and ). Violations incurred during the operation of special motor vehicles are subject to different penalties (see, e.g., Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1193 [1-a] [operating a school bus while impaired is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1500 or by a period of imprisonment as provided in the penal law or both]). Section 1193 classifies each §1192 violation and correlates penalties to the specific degree of the violation (see, e.g., Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 1193 and [compare misdemeanor driving while intoxicated fines and sentences with those for felony driving while intoxicated]). The penalties for multiple §1192 violations increase with each violation that occurs over a specific period of time (see, e.g., Vehicle and Traffic Law §1193 [person who operates a vehicle in violation of §1192(2), (3) or (4) with a prior conviction for a §1192 (2), (3) or (4) violation within 10 years is guilty of a class E felony and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1000 nor more than $5000 or by a period of imprisonment provided in the penal law or both]) Unlike the Penal Law, §1193 mandates minimum fines where a fine is imposed (compare, Vehicle and Traffic Law §1193 [misdemeanor driving while intoxicated has a minimum fine of $500] with Penal Law § 80.05(1), (2) [Class A and B misdemeanors have no minimum]).
In addition to criminal penalties, §1193 further imposes mandatory minimum periods for license suspension or revocation (see, e.g., Vehicle and Traffic Law §1193 [license suspended for 90 days where a person is convicted of driving while ability impaired]; Vehicle and Traffic Law §1193 [license revoked for a minimum of six months where a person is convicted of driving while ability-impaired within five years of another §1192 conviction]). These sanctions, like the criminal penalties, are correlated to the specific nature and degree of the §1192 violation (compare, Vehicle and Traffic Law §
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New York DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|