DWI Appeal

April 7, 2021

New Jersey Court Upholds DWI Conviction Following an Arrest of a Parked Motorist

Typically, the police must harbor a reasonable suspicion that a person is engaging in unlawful activity to effectuate a traffic stop. As such, if they stop a person without just cause, any evidence obtained during the stop may ultimately be deemed inadmissible, making it very difficult for the prosecution to prove the defendant committed any crime. As discussed in a recent opinion issued by a New Jersey Court in a DWI case, there is, thought, an exception for instances in which officers are acting in their community care taking role. If you are charged with a DWI offense, you should consult a skilled New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to assess your potential defenses.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the police were dispatched following a 911 call that reported an SUV was stopped in a road near an intersection. The caller advised that she observed the vehicle for three minutes and noticed that the driver’s head was hanging down and he was not moving. She reported she called 911 because she was concerned that he might need medical attention. When officers arrived at the scene, they found the defendant in an SUV, sitting as described by the 911 caller.

Allegedly, when they spoke with the defendant, they noticed he was lethargic, had difficulty completing sentences, and was rambling. Additionally, his eyes were bloodshot and watery. They administered field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed. He was arrested and charged with DWI. He was convicted as charged. He then appealed, arguing in part that his arrest constituted an unlawful violation of his fourth amendment rights because the investigating officers did not have probable cause to arrest him for DWI. Continue reading

March 29, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Evidence of Impairment in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

While many DWI charges rely on the defendant’s blood-alcohol level to prove guilt, not all do. In fact, a defendant can be found guilty of DWI despite the lack of chemical testing. The evidence presented must nonetheless be sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant operated a vehicle while impaired. Recently, a New Jersey court issued an opinion discussing what constitutes competent evidence of intoxication in a case in which the defendant challenged his DWI conviction. If you are accused of a DWI offense, it is smart to confer with a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to evaluate what evidence the State may attempt to use against you.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that police officers were dispatched to investigate reports of a vehicle hitting a parked car numerous times. They were provided a description of the vehicle that matched an SUV they had observed earlier in a parking lot. They returned to the lot and saw the defendant standing outside of the SUV. When the officers spoke with the defendant, he appeared highly intoxicated and admitted to drinking four or five beers.

Allegedly, the officers determined that it was not safe to perform field sobriety testing but arrested the defendant and transported him to the police station, where he underwent a breath test. The defendant was charged with multiple crimes, including DWI. At the trial, evidence regarding his breath test was deemed inadmissible. He was convicted based on the arresting officers’ testimony, after which he appealed. Continue reading

March 19, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses the Right to a Speedy Trial in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Under New Jersey law, all criminal defendants, even those charged with DWI, are innocent until proven guilty and have numerous rights from the time the matter is under investigation through the resolution of their case. For example, a DWI defendant has the right to a speedy trial, and if the right is violated, the charges against the person may be dismissed. Recently, a New Jersey court issued an opinion discussing the right to a speedy trial in a matter in which the defendant’s trial was delayed for almost two years after her arrest. If you are charged with a DWI offense, it is in your best interest to speak to a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to determine your rights.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that the defendant was arrested for DWI in July 2016. She waived her right to an arraignment hearing and her first appearance approximately a month after her arrest was adjourned at her attorney’s request. It was rescheduled for September 2016 but was continued by the court. The matter was ultimately scheduled for trial in February 2017 but was relisted to July 2017, which was the next available date, per the request of the defendant’s attorney.

Allegedly, the defendant then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, which was denied. She appealed, and her appeal was denied as well. Thus, she entered a conditional plea in April 2018, over 630 days after her arrest. She then appealed the denial of her motion to dismiss, arguing that her right to a speedy trial had been violated. Continue reading

March 8, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Operation of a Vehicle in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Under New Jersey law, people can be charged with DWI offenses, even if they were not actually driving at the time of their arrest. Rather, under the DWI law, a person merely has to “operate” a vehicle while intoxicated to be found guilty of DWI. What constitutes operation is a question frequently brought before the New Jersey courts. In a recent ruling in which a DWI conviction was confirmed, a New Jersey court explained what is considered sufficient evidence of operation for purposes of DWI. If you are accused of a DWI crime, it is in your best interest to meet with a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to evaluate what defenses you may be able to assert.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that police officers observed the defendant standing on the side of a highway next to his vehicle at approximately 2 am. The vehicle’s lights were flashing, and the defendant was adjusting his pants. The officers spoke with the defendant, who advised that he was on the way home from the casino and stopped to urinate. He admitted he had a drink earlier in the day and agreed to submit to a field sobriety test. He failed the test and refused to provide a breath sample and was subsequently arrested and charged with refusal to submit to a chemical breath test and DWI. He was convicted as charged, after which he appealed. On appeal, he argued, among other things, that the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the intent to operate his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument and affirmed his conviction.

Operation of a Vehicle

Under New Jersey law, a person that operates a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more, or while under the influence of alcohol, is guilty of DWI. The court explained that operates is broadly construed to include more than just driving. The operation, then, can be established by numerous circumstances, including an observation of the defendant in or out of the vehicle under circumstances that would indicate the defendant had been driving while intoxicated, actual observation of the defendant driving while intoxicated, or the defendant’s admission. Continue reading

February 25, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Consent to Blood Tests in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

DUI-related crashes are often more likely to be fatal than other accidents, and people that cause deadly DUI collisions may face significant charges and penalties. As with any other crime, however, the prosecution must prove each element of the charges the defendant faces, and if any evidence used to support the State’s case was obtained unlawfully, it might be precluded. Recently, a New Jersey court issued an opinion addressing the grounds for precluding a blood test result in a case where the defendant argued that his arrest was unlawful and his blood sample was not given freely. If you are charged with a DWI offense, it is critical to speak to a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer promptly to discuss your possible defenses.

The Defendant’s Crime

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a collision on a New Jersey morning in August 2014. A car that the defendant struck spun off the road and caught fire. One of the individuals in the car died due to his injuries, and the others were critically wounded. The defendant was taken to a hospital where his blood was drawn. The results of the test indicated he was under the influence of several illicit drugs. He was ultimately charged with and convicted of numerous crimes, including vehicular homicide and assault by auto while under the influence of an intoxicating narcotic. He appealed, arguing in part that this arrest was unlawful and he did not voluntarily submit to a blood test, and therefore, his test results should have been precluded.

Grounds for Precluding a Blood Test

On appeal, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that his blood test was not voluntary because he was advised by the police that it was required, noting that the evidence made it clear that his consent was willingly and intelligently provided. Further, the court noted that while it was undisputed that the defendant was not advised he was under arrest before he consented to a blood draw, the defendant argued he was subject to a de facto arrest and, therefore, his consent was unlawful. Continue reading

February 19, 2021

New Jersey Court Explains Grounds for Post-Conviction Relief in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

Typically, people who decide to enter a guilty plea to DWI charges are represented by counsel who has fully explained their rights as criminal defendants and the implications of entering such a plea. However, regardless of whether someone enters a plea with or without the presence of an attorney, the court is required to provide a defendant with a colloquy to ensure they fully understand the consequences of pleading guilty. If a proper colloquy is not provided, it may constitute grounds for post-conviction relief. As explained in a recent New Jersey opinion, though, a request for post-conviction relief must be timely; otherwise, it may be denied. If you are charged with a DWI crime, it is smart to speak to a New Jersey DWI defense lawyer to determine your rights.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was arrested for a first offense DWI in 2010. He was represented by counsel during his plea hearing and entered a guilty plea. He specifically admitted that he drove under the influence of alcohol and did not object to the admission of a report regarding his blood alcohol level into evidence. He stated he understood the evidence was more than adequate to support his conviction, and that is why he decided to plead guilty. Further, he advised the judge that he entered his plea voluntarily and freely.

It is reported that he was sentenced to the minimum fines and penalties, and his license was revoked for seven months. In June 2019, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing he was not provided a proper colloquy. The trial court denied his petition, finding that the colloquy was adequate, and the defendant appealed. Continue reading

January 7, 2021

New Jersey Court Discusses Post-Conviction Relief in DWI Cases

by Jonathan F. Marshall

In some cases in which a defendant is charged with a DWI crime, it makes sense to enter a guilty plea. A defendant must weigh the evidence possessed by the State and the potential penalties he or she may face prior to making the decision to admit to guilt, though, as in many cases, the decision cannot be reversed. This was illustrated in a recent New Jersey opinion in which the court assessed a defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief in a DWI case, arising out of the trial court’s refusal to allow him to reverse his guilty plea to a drug DWI offense. If you are charged with driving while intoxicated, it is advisable to speak to a dedicated New Jersey DWI defense attorney to discuss your rights.

The Defendant’s Trial

It is alleged that the defendant was driving his car when it slid off the road. The police responded to the scene of the accident, after which the defendant admitted to drinking liquid PCP prior to operating the vehicle. He was charged with a DWI crime, which was his second DWI offense, and other crimes. At his plea hearing, the defendant clearly acknowledged that pleading guilty as charged could result in the loss of his license for up to two years and monetary fines.

It is reported that the defendant nonetheless entered a guilty plea. At his sentencing hearing, however, he informally sought to withdraw his plea, stating that a two-year license suspension would be devastating. The court denied his request and imposed monetary penalties and a two-year license suspension on the defendant. He then filed a motion for post-conviction relief. The court denied his motion without a hearing, and he appealed. Continue reading

December 4, 2020

New Jersey Court Discusses Standard of Review for DWI Appeals

by Jonathan F. Marshall

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