 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Lutz3/16/1998
in a head-on collision where his vehicle crossed the center line and struck the other vehicle. The totality of the evidence clearly established probable cause to arrest defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Defendant also contends that the summons charging him with violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 failed to adequately describe the offense. We disagree. The summons was issued on a form prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts in compliance with R. 7:6-1. The summons under the offense portion described the offense as "Driving Under Influence" and referenced N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. This information was sufficient to inform defendant of the offense charged. See State v. Henry, 133 N.J. 104, 110 (1993). Moreover, defendant has offered no evidence that he was prejudiced by this description.
Before turning to defendant's arguments concerning his careless driving conviction, we are satisfied that his contention that he was entitled to a jury trial is without merit. First, defendant failed to raise this issue in the Law Division. See State v. Bogus, 223 N.J. Super. 409, 419 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 567 (1988). Second, our Supreme Court has expressly rejected the argument that a defendant facing conviction as a third time offender of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 is entitled to a jury trial. State v. Hamm, 121 N.J. 109, 111 (1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 947, 111 S. Ct. 1413, 113 L. Ed. 2d, 466 (1991).
Finally, we find merit in defendant's contention that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of careless driving. We agree that the proofs established essentially that defendant was involved in an accident which happened in the opposite lane of travel. In finding defendant guilty of careless driving, the Law Division Judge stated:
The defendant quite clearly operated his vehicle carelessly, failed to exercise appropriate caution in the prevailing circumstances, and endangered both the persons in the other vehicle.
These conclusory remarks, however, were insufficient to establish a careless driving violation.
It appears that both the Municipal Court Judge and the Law Division judge applied a res ipsa loquitur analysis in finding defendant guilty of careless driving. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, however, has no application in the determination of careless driving due to the quasi- criminal nature of the proceeding in which the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offense. See State v. Wenzel, 113 N.J. Super., 215, 216-18 (App. Div. 1971)(the mere fact of an "otherwise unexplained jackknifing" where a tractor-trailer entering a construction area had jackknifed on the wet roadway, crossed into the opposite lane and broadsided another truck fatally injuring the truck's driver, did not establish that the defendant had been driving carelessly.)
The careless driving statute provides:
person who drives a vehicle on a highway carelessly, or without due caution and circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property, shall be guilty of careless driving.
[N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.]
Here, other than the accident itself, the State only presented defendant's statement that his vehicle began to slide on the wet highway and continued to do so when he tapped his brakes. Moreover, his apology was not an admission to driving carelessly, but merely a statement that his car had slid on the wet pavement. The State presented no evidence indicating that defendant had been speeding, driving too fast for the wet road conditions, distracted or otherwise driving without due caution and circums
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Jersey DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|