| Our courts have
long held that prosecutions for "a violation of [motor vehicle law]
provisions results in a prosecution of a quasi-criminal action."
State v. Cooper, 129 N.J. Super. 229, 231 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
66 N.J. 329 (1974); see also State v. Selzer, 57 N.J. Super. 327, 330
(Law Div. 1959) "(It has been firmly established by the decisions
in this State that motor vehicle or traffic violations, unless specifically
designated otherwise, are quasi-criminal in character.)"; State v.
Rowe, 116 N.J.L. 48, 51 (1935)" (It is . . . the settled law that
our Motor Vehicle Act is a penal statute; it is quasi criminal in nature.)"
(citation omitted). Quasi-criminal offenses are a class of offenses against
the public 'which have not been declared crimes, but wrongful against
the general or local public which it is proper should be repressed or
punished by forfeitures and penalties.' State v. Laird, 25 N.J. 298, 302-03
(1957) (quoting Wiggins v. City of Chicago, 68 Ill. 372 (1873)). Courts
have characterized traffic offenses as quasi-criminal "to satisfy
the requirements of fundamental fairness and essential justice to the
accused." Vickey v. Nessler, 230 N.J. Super. 141, 149 (1989); see
also Laird, 25 N.J. at 303 (holding that classification of crimes as quasi-criminal
is "in no sense illusory . . . [as] it has reference to the safeguards
inherent in the very nature of the offense, the punitive quality that
characterizes the proceeding, and the requirement of fundamental fairness
and essential justice)". It follows that "[a] defendant in a
prosecution alleging violation of one of the quasi-criminal offenses enumerated
in the Motor Vehicle Act is . . . entitled to the basic rights afforded
to criminal defendants. . . ." State v. Feintuch, 150 N.J. Super.
414, 422 (App. Div. 1977) (citing State v. Emery, 27 N.J. 348, 353 (1958);
Cooper, supra, 129 N.J. Super. at 231), appeal dismissed, 75 N.J. 606
(1978); see also State v. Francis, 67 N.J. Super. 377, 381 (App. Div.
1961) (holding that defendants charged with quasi-criminal offenses "are
entitled to the same protection[s] as are normally accorded one accused
of a criminal offense)". However, until 1983, our case law was unclear
concerning whether principles of double jeopardy are applicable to motor
vehicle prosecutions. State v. Dively, 92 N.J. 573, 584 (1983). Dively
expressly held that "Motor Vehicle violations tried in municipal
courts are within the category of offenses subject to the Double Jeopardy
Clause." Id. at 586. State v. John Widmaier 157 N.J. 475. (1999)
Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with
criminal and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. Our office
helps people with traffic/ municipal court tickets including drivers
charged with driving commercial vehicle while intoxicated, refusal and
on driving while suspended with a CDL.
Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have to pay fines in
court or receive points on your drivers license. An accumulation of
too many points, or certain moving violations may require you to pay
expensive surcharges to the N.J. MVC [Division of Motor Vehicles] or
have your license suspended. Don't give up! The Law Office of Kenneth
Vercammen can provide experienced attorney representation for motor
vehicle violations.
When your driver's license is in jeopardy or you are facing thousands
of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insurance increases, you
need excellent legal representation. The least expensive attorney is
not always the answer. Please call us if you need experienced legal
representation in a traffic/municipal court matter. Our website www.njlaws.com
provides information on traffic offenses we can be retained to represent
people. Our website also provides details on jail terms for traffic
violations and car insurance eligibility points. Car insurance companies
increase rates or drop customers based on moving violations.
Conclusion
It is well established that the prosecution of a defendant for a motor
vehicle violation is a quasi-criminal proceeding. In such a proceeding
the burden of proof is upon the state to establish all elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, plea bargaining is
not permitted in Municipal Court DWI cases (while it is available in
such varied charges as murder, careless driving, or the burning of old
tires). Defense counsel must subpoena its necessary witnesses and prepare
for trial. Never attempt to represent yourself if you are facing serious
charges.
About the Author
Kenneth A. Vercammen is a trial attorney in Edison, Middlesex County,
New Jersey. He often lectures for the New Jersey State Bar Association,
New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education and Middlesex County
College on personal injury, criminal / municipal court law, and drunk
driving. He has published 125 articles in national and New Jersey publications
on municipal court and litigation topics. He has served as a Special
Acting Prosecutor in seven different cities and towns in New Jersey
and also successfully defended hundreds of individuals facing Municipal
Court and Criminal Court charges.
In his private practice, he has devoted a substantial portion of his
professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated matters.
He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week
on many personal injury matters, Municipal Court trials, matrimonial
hearings, and contested administrative law hearings.
Since 1985, his primary concentration has been on litigation matters.
Mr. Vercammen gained other legal experiences as the Confidential Law
Clerk to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Supreme Court), with the
Delaware County, PA District Attorney Office handling Probable Cause
Hearings, Middlesex County Probation Dept as a Probation Officer, and
an Executive Assistant to Scranton District Magistrate, Thomas Hart,
in Scranton, PA.
|
