|
Kenneth
Vercammen & Associates |
Proof of operation of a motor vehicle in a DWI case |
| The State has
the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was driving
while intoxicated. State v. Grant, 196 N.J. Super. 470, 477 (App. Div.
1984). N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 specifically applies to a person who operates
a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . .
. (Emphasis added). The term operate must be given broad construction.
State v. Morris, 262 N.J. Super. 413, 417 (App. Div. 1993). Actual operation
is not required to satisfy the element. Ibid.; State v. Sweeney, 40 N.J.
359, 360-61 (1963). Operation may be proved by any direct or circumstantial
evidence as long as it is competent and meets the requisite standards
of proof. State v. George, 257 N.J. Super. 493, 497 (App. Div. 1992).
Operation may be proved by actual observation of the defendant driving
while intoxicated, State v. Prociuk, 145 N.J. Super. 570, 573 (Law Div.
1976); by observation of the defendant in or out of the vehicle under
circumstances indicating that the defendant had been driving while intoxicated,
State v. Mulcahy, 107 N.J. 467, 476 (1987); Morris, supra, 262 N.J. Super.
at 419-20; Sweeney, supra, 77 N.J. Super. 512, 521 (App. Div. 1962); State
v. Witter, 33 N.J. Super. 1, 5-7 (App. Div. 1954); or by defendant¹s
admission, State v. Hanemann, 180 N.J. Super. 544, 547 (App. Div.) (affirming
defendant¹s conviction based upon his admission that he had been
driving earlier that night after the police found his empty overturned
vehicle on the highway), certif. denied, 88 N.J. 506 (1981); State v.
Dickens, 130 N.J. Super. 73, 78 (App. Div. 1974) (affirming defendant¹s
conviction based on his admission to drinking and driving when the police
woke him up in his parked car on Interstate 287); State v. Guerrido, 60
N.J. Super. 505, 509 (App. Div. 1960) (affirming defendant¹s conviction
based on the testimony of two witnesses that he was intoxicated and his
admission to police that he had been driving after his car was found buried
full length in some shrubbery and lilac bushes.)
The Appellate Division in State v Ebert 377 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005) recently detailed the proof required by the state. 1. The state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. "Operation" may be proved by actual observation of the defendant driving while intoxicated, by observation of the defendant in or out of the vehicle under circumstances indicating that the defendant had been driving while intoxicated, or by the defendant's admission. 2. Defendant's .27 percent BAC, along with the fact that she had driven to the parking lot of a restaurant on a major state highway, Route 46 in Denville, was sufficient to sustain her conviction for reckless driving. Conclusion If charged with Driving While Intoxicated, immediately schedule an in-office appointment with a trial attorney. Don't rely on a real estate attorney, public defender or a family member who simply attended law school. When your driving privileges and ability to drive to work is on the line, hire an experienced attorney.
|
|
|
|
Meet with an experienced
Attorney to handle your important legal needs. |
|
Kenneth
Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal,
drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey.
Our office helps people with traffic/ municipal court tickets including
drivers charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal and Driving
While Suspended. Contact the Law
Office of The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential "in office" consultation. The Law Office now accepts payment by American Express, Visa and Master Card.
Disclaimer This web site is purely a public resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but not promised or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is not intended be a source of legal advice, do not rely on information at this site or others in place of the advice of competent counsel. The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. This web site is not sponsored or associated with any particular linked entity unless specifically stated. The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential interest to the reader, inclusion of a link should not be construed as an endorsement.
Last Revised March 5, 2008 İ 2008 Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C. |