Opinion
2007-1077 D CR.
Decided October 30, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of LaGrange, Dutchess County (Stephen L. Greller, J.), entered June 12, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of speeding.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and SCHEINKMAN, JJ.
Defendant was convicted, after a nonjury trial, of the traffic infraction of speeding (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1180 [b]). Stenographic minutes were not taken of the trial, during which, it is undisputed, the State Trooper who issued the ticket acted in a prosecutorial capacity and testified in narrative form.
A trial court has the discretion to allow testimony in narrative form ( People v Osuna, 103 AD2d 719, 720, affd 65 NY2d 822; People v Pappas, 19 Misc 3d 140 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50903[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2008]), and defendant was not denied his constitutional right to confront his accuser by the court's allowing such testimony, since the testimony was subject to objections and cross-examination ( see People v Pacer , 6 NY3d 504 , 512).
We further find no violation of the advocate-witness rule in the court's permitting the Trooper to prosecute the case. The Trooper was not an attorney, and the advocate-witness rule, which is set forth in the Code of Professional Responsibility, applies only to attorneys ( see 22 NYCRR 1200.21; People v Paperno, 54 NY2d 294; People v Pappas , 19 Misc 3d 140 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50903[U] [2008], supra). Police officers are permitted to act as prosecutors and witnesses in the same case ( see People v Soddano, 86 NY2d 727).
Lastly, we find that the Justice Court's return, by which we are bound ( see People v Prior, 4 NY2d 70, 73; People v Galimore , 11 Misc 3d 143 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50744[U] [App Term, 9th 10th Jud Dists 2006]), indicates that the Trooper was not permitted to read from the summons while testifying at trial, and that the court simply permitted the Trooper to refresh his recollection from the written document. Thus, no error occurred in this regard warranting reversal.
Accordingly, the judgment convicting defendant of speeding is affirmed.
Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Scheinkman, JJ., concur.