In the vast majority of cases, challenging the element of “intoxication” or “impairment” provides the greatest opportunity for mounting a successful defense to a VTL § 1192 prosecution.
“What is the Legal Definition of “Intoxication” in New York?”
In People v. Cruz, 48 N.Y.2d 419 (1979), the defendant contended that the line between “impairment” and “intoxication” was not sufficiently defined in the statute and thus denied him due process of law. In rejecting the defendant’s position, the Court provided that to establish “intoxication” under VTL § 1192-3, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has:
“Voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.”
Cruz, N.Y.2d at 423
Along with providing a definition, the Cruz court provided several examples to the extent to which a driver’s skills must be diminished before a conclusion of “intoxication” could be reached by the trier of fact:
“But the standard for determining intoxication is constant; that is, whether the individual’s consumption of alcohol has rendered him incapable of employing the physical or mental abilities needed to, for instance, form a specific intent … understand the nature and effect of a contract or testify truthfully and accurately.”
Cruz, N.Y.2d at 427-28
“What is the Legal Definition of “Impairment” in New York?”
In addition to providing a definition of “intoxication,” Cruz, supra, also set forth the formula for determining “impairment” under VTL § 1192-1. In setting forth the distinction between these two statutory elements, the Court held that a driver is “impaired” when the voluntary consumption of alcohol has:
“Actually impaired, to any extent, the physical and mental abilities which is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.”