Articles Posted in DWI Defenses

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

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

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

In New Jersey, prosecutors are appointed by local governing bodies. Thus, if a person is charged with a DWI offense, an attorney appointed by the municipality will typically be tasked with presenting the State’s evidence against the defendant. Even if another attorney represents the State in criminal proceedings, however, it does not mean that a DWI defendant is entitled to a new trial, as demonstrated in a recent New Jersey opinion. If you are a resident of New Jersey currently charged with a DWI offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a proficient New Jersey DWI defense attorney to discuss your rights and what defenses you may be able to assert.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was stopped in the early morning in May 2014 for driving erratically. After the officer who initiated the stop spoke with the defendant, he noticed the defendant was exhibiting signs of intoxication. Thus, the defendant was ultimately issued four summonses and charged with driving while intoxicated, speeding, failing to exhibit his registration and reckless driving. Subsequently, the defendant and the prosecution appeared in court together eight times over a period of a year nine months for hearings, arguments, and a partial trial.

Allegedly, on the second day of the trial, the defendant moved to dismiss his summonses, arguing that the individual that had been appointed as the municipal court prosecutor by the governing body had only appeared at one of the court proceedings. The defendant then entered into a conditional guilty plea to the DWI charge, and the remaining charges were dismissed. The court then denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, which caused the defendant to file an appeal. Continue reading

In some instances in which a DWI accident is especially catastrophic and there was more than one person in the car at the time of the incident, it may not be clear who was driving. Thus, the State will likely have to determine who was driving and then who should be charged criminally based on circumstantial evidence such as statements from the parties involved. Recently, a New Jersey court assessed whether statements made by a defendant charged with DWI shortly after an accident were admissible in a case in which the defendant alleged he lacked the capacity to knowingly waive his right against self-incrimination. If you live in New Jersey and are charged with DWI based on statements you made during a police investigation, you should consult a trusted New Jersey DWI defense attorney to assess whether you may be able to have evidence of your statements precluded.

Facts Surrounding the Accident and Subsequent Statements

It is reported that the police were called to the scene of a devastating car accident in which it appeared the car had left the roadway and struck a tree. When the police arrived, the defendant was on the ground by the passenger side of the vehicle and was being tended to by EMS workers. The defendant’s nephew was hanging out of the passenger side window and was deceased when the police arrived at the scene.

Allegedly, when the police were investigating the accident they visited the defendant in the hospital, read him Miranda warnings, and then began questioning him. Through the course of the questioning, the defendant stated he and his nephew had been drinking prior to the accident, and that he could not recall the accident but knew that he was not ejected from the vehicle. He also stated he crawled to the passenger side to help his nephew. A blood test revealed that the defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the accident was between 0.17 and 0.23. He was charged with DWI and second-degree vehicular homicide. He filed a motion to suppress the statements he made in the hospital, which the court denied. After his conviction, the defendant appealed, arguing he did not have the capacity to knowingly waive his Miranda rights. Continue reading

Generally, a police officer may not lawfully stop a vehicle unless the officer reasonably believes or suspects that the driver of the vehicle committed a traffic violation or a crime. Additionally, if an officer violates a driver’s rights by stopping the driver without just cause, the State may be barred from using evidence obtained during the stop to demonstrate that the officer committed a crime. There are some exceptions to the rule, though, as shown in a recent case in which a New Jersey appellate court affirmed a defendant’s conviction for DWI that arose out of a community-caretaking stop. If you live in New Jersey and are charged with a DWI offense, it is smart to speak with a diligent New Jersey DWI defense attorney about what evidence the State could be permitted to use against you.

Facts of the Case

It is alleged that a police officer dispatched to a convenience store following a call from the store’s manager in which she reported that a patron who appeared to have been the victim of an assault was sitting in a car in the parking lot. When the officer arrived at the convenience store to do a welfare check, he observed the defendant driving out of the parking lot in a visibly upset condition. As such, the officer stopped the defendant’s vehicle to check on the defendant’s condition, as he believed she may have been the victim of domestic violence. After speaking with the defendant, the officer determined that she may have been under the influence of alcohol. The defendant was ultimately charged with DWI. Prior to trial, she filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, which the court denied. She pled guilty while reserving her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. Following her sentencing, she appealed.

Evidence Obtained During a Community Caretaking Stop

The sole issue on appeal was whether the underlying stop of the defendant was unlawful. Generally, an officer may not initiate a stop unless the officer has an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the driver of the vehicle is violating the law, usually by committing a traffic violation. In the subject case, the State did not assert that the arresting officer observed the defendant violating a law prior to stopping the defendant but instead argued that the stop was lawful under the community-caretaking function of law enforcement. Continue reading

Under both the New Jersey and Federal Constitutions, defendants charged with DWI have numerous rights, including the right to a prompt resolution of the charges against them. Thus, if the State violates a defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant may be able to argue for the dismissal of any pending charges or for a verdict to be vacated. Recently, in a New Jersey DWI case, the court set forth the standards for determining whether the defendant has been deprived of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. If you are charged with DWI, it is in your best interest to converse with a New Jersey DWI defense attorney to assess what rights you may be afforded under the law.

Factual History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was stopped due to an improper lane change in December 2017. When the police officer that stopped the defendant spoke with the defendant, he noticed she smelled of alcohol. The defendant underwent field sobriety tests, which she failed. She was subsequently charged with DWI. She invoked her right to a speedy trial at her first court appearance later that month. After several hearings, a trial date was set for October 2018.

However, allegedly, when the trial commenced, the police officer that conducted the stop was not present. Thus, the defendant moved for dismissal of the charges due to the violation of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and the trial was rescheduled for December 2018. The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to her charges and was sentenced as a third time offender. She then appealed her conviction arguing, in part, that her right to a speedy trial was violated. Continue reading

In most instances in New Jersey, when a person is charged with DWI, the State will base the charges on the results of a chemical test showing the person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC). A BAC is not required to charge a person with DWI or to obtain a conviction, however, and if a DWI suspect refuses to submit to chemical testing, he or she may face additional charges, as demonstrated in a recent New Jersey DWI case. If you are charged with refusal to submit to a chemical test or any other DWI related offense, it is critical to speak to a skillful New Jersey DWI defense attorney regarding what measures you may be able to take to protect your interests.

Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was stopped by a police officer for repeatedly failing to maintain his lane on the roadway by driving onto the shoulder and into the opposing lane. After the police officer stopped the defendant, he noticed the defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes, sluggish movement, and smelled of alcohol. The defendant submitted to field sobriety tests, which he completed poorly. The officer attempted to administer a breath test, but the defendant refused to produce adequate air to produce a valid reading. The defendant was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and refusal to submit to a chemical test. Following a trial, he was convicted on both charges. He then appealed his convictions.

Sufficiency of Evidence of DWI

On appeal, the appellate court upheld the defendant’s DWI conviction. In other words, the court noted that the totality of the evidence introduced by the State was sufficient to support the ruling that the defendant was driving while under the influence of alcohol. Specifically, the appellate court stated that the State produced evidence that the defendant was suffering from a significant deterioration of his physical and mental capabilities which greatly affected his judgment as to make it improper for him to operate a vehicle on the road. The appellate court explained that the trial court was not required to accept the defendant’s reasoning as to why his eyes were bloodshot, stating the evidence was consistent with guilt. Continue reading

In many instances in which a person is convicted of a New Jersey DWI offense, he or she will appeal his or her municipal court conviction, and in some instances, will appeal a conviction from the Law Division as well. Whether an appeal from either court will be successful depends on several factors, however, and varies from case to case. Recently, a New Jersey appellate court discussed the standard of review that applies at each level in a case in which the defendant appealed his DWI conviction arguing, in part, that there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are faced with accusations that you committed a New Jersey DWI crime, it is advisable to speak with a dedicated New Jersey DWI defense attorney to discuss your options for protecting your rights.

Factual Background

It is reported that the defendant was observed by an anonymous source leaving a beach wearing only a jacket, getting into a truck, and driving down a nearby road. The police investigated and found the defendant in the driver’s seat of a truck that was parked in the wrong direction. The police approached the vehicle and spoke with the defendant, who had slurred speech and was only wearing a jacket tied around his waist.

Allegedly, the defendant submitted to field sobriety tests, which he failed, after which he was arrested and transported to the police station for chemical testing. He was subsequently charged with DWI, careless driving, and reckless driving. He was convicted in the municipal court of DWI and careless driving, after which he appealed to the Law Division, where he was again found guilty. He then appealed to the Superior Court, arguing, in part, that the Law Division erred in finding him guilty de novo. Continue reading

Under New Jersey law, prior to conducting field sobriety tests on a person, the police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is intoxicated. Odtherwise, the results of the field sobriety tests may be inadmissible. There is no single fact that constitutes sufficient grounds to reasonable suspicion, however, and in some instances, numerous factors that in and of themselves are insufficient to raise suspicion may combine to justify a DWI investigation, as shown in a recent case arising out of New Jersey. If you are charged with committing a DWI offense in New Jersey, and you believe the police did not have sufficient grounds to conduct an investigation, it is prudent to confer with a trusted New Jersey DWI defense attorney regarding your rights.

Factual Background

Allegedly, a police officer observed the defendant making an illegal left hand turn into the parking lot of a drug store, after which the officer stopped the defendant. When he approached the car, the officer noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle but believed it may be coming from one of the passengers. The defendant denied drinking, but the officer administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test on the defendant regardless, while the defendant was seated in the driver’s seat. The officer observed a lack of smooth pursuit during the test, after which he asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. The defendant then submitted to field sobriety testing.

It is reported that the defendant was ultimately arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. He filed a motion to suppress the result of his field sobriety tests, which the court denied. The defendant then entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. Continue reading