DWI Appeal

December 4, 2020

New Jersey Court Discusses Standard of Review for DWI Appeals

In a New Jersey DWI case, the State must prove in municipal court beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charged offenses. A defendant that is convicted despite insufficient evidence has the right to appeal to the law division. The law division must abide by certain requirements on review, and if it does not, its decision may be overruled as well. In a recent opinion, a New Jersey court discussed the law division’s obligations in evaluating a DWI defendant’s appeal in a case in which the defendant argued the State’s evidence was inadequate to prove his guilt. If you are charged with a DWI offense in New Jersey, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should meet with a seasoned New Jersey DWI defense attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with and convicted of DWI. He appealed to the law division, and his conviction was affirmed. The case then went through numerous rounds of appeals and remands, each of which resulted in rulings affirming his conviction. He appealed his conviction to the Superior Court a third time, arguing in part that the law division erred in applying an appellate standard instead of conducting the de novo analysis which was required by law. The court agreed and once again remanded the matter to the law division for review.

Standard of Review on DWI Appeals

Under New Jersey law, when a defendant appeals from a conviction in a municipal court, the law division must defer to the municipal court’s credibility findings but must otherwise develop its own conclusions of law and findings of fact. In other words, the law division is required to review the evidence anew, or de novo, based on the record developed in the municipal court while giving due regard to the ability of the municipal court judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Continue reading

October 28, 2020

New Jersey Court Discusses the State’s Burden of Proof in DWI Refusal Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Typically, when the police suspect a person is guilty of driving while intoxicated, they will request that the person provide a breath sample. As New Jersey’s implied consent laws require drivers to submit to a breath test, the failure to do so may result in a refusal charge in addition to other DWI offenses. Recently, a New Jersey court clarified the State’s burden of proof in cases involving refusal, in an opinion in which the defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to uphold her conviction. If you live in New Jersey and are accused of refusing to submit to a breath test or another DWI related crime, it is advisable to talk to a New Jersey DWI defense attorney regarding what evidence the State must produce to convict you.

History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was involved in an accident on an evening in September 2017. Specifically, she drove her car into the side of another car that was stopped at a red light. A police officer investigating the accident spoke with the defendant and noticed that her speech was slurred and her eyes were glassy. She appeared confused as well but denied that she consumed alcohol or took any medication.

Allegedly, per the officer’s request, the defendant performed field sobriety tests, but she was unable to complete them. The officer then arrested the defendant for DWI and transported her to the police station. Once at the station, the defendant refused to submit to a breath test. She was subsequently charged with DWI, reckless driving, and refusal to submit to a breath test. She was convicted of refusal and careless driving, after which she appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to uphold her refusal conviction. Continue reading

October 19, 2020

New Jersey Court Explains Exigent Circumstances Permitting a Warrantless Blood Draw in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

In New Jersey, when a person is suspected of DWI, the police must obtain either a warrant or the person’s permission prior to obtaining a blood sample. In certain instances, however, the police may obtain a blood sample absent consent or the authority to do so from a judge. The circumstances under which a warrantless blood draw may be conducted were recently discussed in a New Jersey appeal in which the defendant was convicted of aggravated manslaughter. If you are a New Jersey resident currently charged with a DWI crime, it is wise to speak to a New Jersey DWI defense attorney about the rights you are afforded under the law.

History of the Case

It is reported that a police officer responded to the scene of an accident where he learned that two young girls who were walking down the side of a road were struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant. When the officer spoke with the defendant, he appeared to be impaired, in that he smelled of alcohol and had bloodshot eyes. He was asked to submit to field sobriety tests, which he failed. The officer then noticed that the defendant’s right hand was injured and transported the defendant to the hospital for medical care.

Allegedly, while the defendant was at the hospital, a blood draw was conducted that revealed the presence of prescription anxiety and pain pills and a BAC of 0.183%. The officer involved was not trained in administering a breath test. The two girls involved in the accident died, and the defendant was charged with aggravated manslaughter. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood test, which was denied. He then pled guilty, and following his sentencing, appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion. Continue reading

October 12, 2020

Court Discusses DWI Sentences Under New Jersey Law

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Under New Jersey law, a person charged with DWI has the right to a fair and impartial trial. Thus, if it is clear that a trial judge is biased or otherwise engages in misconduct that is prejudicial to the defendant, it may constitute grounds for a new trial or re-sentencing. In some instances, though, even if a trial judge behaved inappropriately, it may not mean that a conviction or sentence should be vacated, as demonstrated in a recent New Jersey DWI opinion. If you live in New Jersey and are faced with charges that you drove while intoxicated, it is in your best interest to confer with a dedicated New Jersey DWI defense attorney to determine what defenses may be available in your case.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was stopped by a police officer for swerving in and out of multiple lanes of traffic. When the officer spoke with the defendant, he noticed his car smelled of alcohol, and the defendant had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant submitted to field sobriety tests, which he performed improperly. He was then charged with DWI, and a breath test revealed his BAC to be .13%. The defendant was convicted in the municipal court, after which he appealed.

Allegedly, on appeal, the law division judge confirmed the defendant’s convictions but found that the license suspension imposed was improper as the municipal judge considered the defendant’s lack of credibility in determining an appropriate length. Thus, the length of the defendant’s license suspension sentence was reduced, and the sentence was stayed. The defendant appealed again, arguing his conviction and sentence should be vacated due to the municipal judge’s misconduct. Continue reading

September 28, 2020

New Jersey Court Discusses Pre-Trial Intervention in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

The New Jersey criminal courts are tasked with handling a high volume of cases each year. Thus, to cut down on unnecessary hearings, the court allows some people who are charged with less serious offenses to enter into the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI), thereby avoiding a trial and conviction. The defendant must establish certain elements in order to be eligible for PTI, however, as demonstrated in a recent New Jersey DWI opinion in which the appellate court ruled that the defendant’s alleged crimes rendered PTI an unsuitable remedy. If you live in New Jersey and are charged with a DWI offense, it is wise to speak to a zealous New Jersey DWI defense attorney to discuss your options.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a collision outside of a fast-food restaurant. The police officer that responded to the scene observed the defendant sitting in his vehicle, with his fourteen-year-old son in the passenger seat. The officer spoke to the defendant and noticed a strong odor of alcohol on the defendant’s breath. As such, he asked the defendant to submit to field sobriety testing. The defendant consented and failed the tests. He was then transported to the police station, where a breath test revealed his BAC to be .21%. He was charged with DWI and numerous other driving offenses, as well as with second degree endangering the welfare of a child.

Allegedly, the defendant filed an application for admission into PTI. The criminal case manager recommended against his admission into the program, and his application was subsequently rejected. The matter then became before a trial judge, who overturned the rejection. The State then appealed.

Eligibility for Pretrial Intervention Continue reading

September 14, 2020

Court Explains Grounds for Vacating a Guilty Plea in a New Jersey DWI Case

by Jonathan F. Marshall

While generally people charged with DWI offer a defense at trial, in some instances, it makes sense for a defendant to enter a guilty plea. Even if a defendant chooses not to contest the charges against him or her though, the court must take certain measures to ensure that the defendant understands the ramifications of his or her choice; otherwise the plea could potentially be vacated at a later date. The grounds for vacating a guilty plea were recently discussed in a New Jersey action in which the defendant argued the factual basis for his not guilty plea was insufficient. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated in New Jersey, you should speak to a dedicated New Jersey DWI defense attorney to determine the best strategy to seek a favorable outcome under the facts of your case.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant crashed the car he was operating in 2011. He was transported to a hospital where it was revealed that his blood alcohol content was over twice the legal limit. As such, he was charged with a per se DWI offense, to which he entered a guilty plea. Then, in August 2018, the defendant was charged with a second DWI offense. Following the second charge, he moved to vacate his earlier conviction to avoid facing increased penalties as a repeat offender.

Allegedly, during oral argument on the matter, the defendant argued that he was not properly advised of the legal consequences of the plea and that the factual basis for the guilty verdict was inadequate. The lower court rejected the defendant’s reasoning, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

September 4, 2020

New Jersey Court Discusses Admissibility of Blood Samples Taken Without a Warrant

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Under New Jersey law, if a DWI suspect declines to submit to a blood test, the police must obtain a warrant to conduct a blood draw. Thus, if blood is taken from a DWI suspect without consent or a warrant, it may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the suspect’s constitutional rights. However, there are exceptions to the rule, as demonstrated in a recent New Jersey opinion in which the court ruled that evidence of test results from blood samples that were taken during the treatment of a DWI suspect was admissible during his criminal trial. If you are accused of committing a DWI crime in New Jersey, it is smart to speak with a reliable New Jersey DWI defense attorney to calculate what evidence the State may be permitted to use against you.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant caused a multi-vehicle collision when he struck an SUV from behind, causing it to hit the car in front of it, which then became engulfed in flames. The three people in the car died immediately, and the individuals in the SUV sustained serious injuries. Emergency medical technicians that arrived at the scene noticed that the defendant, who also suffered grave harm, smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. The defendant was transported to the hospital for care, and as part of the normal procedure, samples of his blood were drawn, and urine samples were obtained via a catheter.

Allegedly, the police arrived at the hospital shortly thereafter, and directed staff members to retain blood samples for their investigation. The police then obtained a warrant for the samples, which showed that the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit. After the defendant was cleared for release, he was taken into custody. He was charged with numerous crimes, including three counts of reckless death by a vehicle, DWI, and driving with a suspended license. He filed a motion to suppress the results of his blood test, which the court denied. He then pleaded guilty to some of the charges, after which he appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Continue reading

August 27, 2020

New Jersey Court Rejects Appeal Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Following DWI Conviction

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Many people incorrectly believe that a DWI charge is merely akin to a traffic offense and that they do not need to hire an attorney or retain knowledgeable counsel. The consequences of retaining an inexperienced lawyer were illustrated in a recent New Jersey DWI appeal, in which the defendant was found guilty of DWI and other charges, and his subsequent appeal arguing that his conviction was caused by the ineffectiveness of his attorney was dismissed on procedural grounds. If you are charged with a DWI offense in New Jersey, you should meet with a skilled New Jersey DWI defense attorney to analyze your possible defenses.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was stopped by a police officer in October 2017 while he was driving in Hackensack, New Jersey. Following the stop, he was charged with driving with an open container of alcohol, reckless driving, and driving while intoxicated. A trial was scheduled for January 2018. Prior to trial, the defendant’s attorney informed the court that he intended to file a motion to suppress, arguing that the police did not have probable cause to stop the defendant prior to conducting the investigation that led to the defendant’s arrest.

Allegedly, however, the defendant’s attorney did not provide the judge with a copy of the motion. The judge allowed the defendant’s attorney to orally present the motion but ultimately denied it. The trial was continued to April 2018, and following the trial, the defendant was convicted of DWI and sentenced as a second-time offender. He then appealed, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective. The State moved to dismiss his claims arguing they should be raised in a petition for post-conviction relief. The court agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, after which he appealed to the appellate court. Continue reading

August 21, 2020

New Jersey Court Discusses Demonstrating a Discovery Violation Has Occurred in a DWI Case

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Discovery is a critical part of any DWI case, as it allows the defendant to determine what evidence the state seeks to introduce at trial and helps prepare defenses to refute the implications of that evidence. Thus, if the state commits a discovery violation, it may greatly impact a defendant’s rights. In a recent New Jersey DWI action, the court discussed what a defendant must demonstrate in order to prove that a discovery violation has occurred. If you are accused of a DWI crime in New Jersey, it is in your best interest to speak to a capable New Jersey DWI defense attorney to evaluate what arguments you may be able to assert.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was stopped after making an unsafe lane change without a turn signal. When the police officer spoke with the defendant, he smelled alcohol. As such, the officer asked the defendant to submit to field sobriety testing. The defendant complied but failed the tests. A breathalyzer test subsequently revealed his blood-alcohol level to be 0.11%. He was then charged with DWI and other traffic violations.

Reportedly, the defendant, who was self-represented, was involved in several disputes with the prosecution. Specifically, he argued that the state failed to provide him with the evidence he sought. A trial was held, and the defendant was convicted on all counts. He appealed, and his appeal was granted, after which a second trial occurred. He was convicted a second time and again appealed. Continue reading

August 14, 2020

Court Discusses the Confrontation Clause in the Context of a DWI Case

by Jonathan F. Marshall

In New Jersey, both the State and the defendant have the right to examine witnesses at trial. Thus, in cases in which either party tries to admit an out of court statement in lieu of testimony, the statement may be barred under the confrontation clause. The parameters of the confrontation clause and any applicable exceptions were recently discussed in a New Jersey DWI appeal in which the defendant argued that the trial court erred in permitting a statement that implicated her guilt. If you are charged with a DWI crime in New Jersey, it is important to understand your rights, and you should convene with a knowledgeable New Jersey DWI defense attorney to assess your charges as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was charged with second-degree homicide by vehicle for striking and killing a person when she was driving while intoxicated. The defendant was convicted, after which she appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence that her husband had been driving when the crime was allegedly committed. The appellate court found in favor of the defendant and remanded the case for a new trial. Following the second trial, the defendant was again convicted, after which she appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted statements showing that the defendant’s husband stated at the scene of the crime that the defendant was driving when the accident occurred.

Grounds for Recusal in a New Jersey Criminal Case

The confrontation clauses of the United States and New Jersey constitutions bar out of court testimonial hearsay that has not been tested via cross-examination, in lieu of in-court testimony. On appeal, the court explained that any narrative statement a person makes to a police officer about a crime is testimonial if the statement is made once any imminent danger to the person or anyone else has ended. Continue reading