The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

Reportedly, the police stopped the defendant in response to a call regarding an erratic driver. When they spoke with the defendant, they noted his pupils were constricted, and his speech was slurred and slow. One of the officers observed needle marks and bruises on the defendant’s arm and a plastic bag similar to the ones typically used for heroin in the defendant’s car as well.

Allegedly, due to the suspicion that the defendant was under the influence of drugs, the police conducted a thirteen-part drug influence evaluation (DIE). The defendant performed poorly on the DIE, and based on his results and behavior, he was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. The defendant was found guilty as charged following a trial in the law division, after which he appealed, arguing that the DIE evidence should not have been admitted because the State failed to demonstrate that such evidence was reliable or generally accepted.

Evidence Needed to Demonstrate Guilt in a Drug DUI Case

On appeal, the defendant argued that the State failed to set forth an adequate foundation that DIE was accepted in the scientific community or was a reliable indicator to support a conviction for driving under the influence of drugs, and therefore, the arresting officer’s testimony regarding the defendant’s performance during the DIE should have been suppressed. The court noted, however, that the defendant’s argument ignored the fact that the judge in the lower court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction, regardless of the DIE test. In other words, his conviction did not rely solely on DIE evidence. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Meet with a Skillful New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

While most New Jersey DUI offenses arise out of the use of alcohol, driving while under the influence of drugs is unlawful as well and can result in drug DUI charges. If you are accused of driving while impaired, it is prudent to meet with an attorney to discuss your options. The skillful New Jersey DWI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall have the skills and experience needed to obtain favorable results, and, if we represent you, we will work diligently to help you seek a just outcome. You can reach us via our form online or at 877-450-8301 to set up a meeting.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the police were dispatched to investigate a collision. When they arrived at the scene of the accident, they determined the defendant had been driving one of the vehicles. When they spoke with him, they observed that he smelled of alcohol and had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. They asked the defendant to submit to a field sobriety test, and he refused.

Allegedly, the defendant was arrested and charged with DWI. He was transported to the police station, where a breath test revealed his blood alcohol content to be 0.11%, which was over the legal limit. As such, he was charged with DWI. He was convicted as charged and then filed an appeal.

Determining Whether the Police Properly Administered a Breath Test

On appeal, the defendant argued that the State failed to demonstrate that the machine used to administer the breath test was functioning properly, as required to demonstrate there was evidence he committed a per se DWI violation. The court rejected the defendant’s argument. Specifically, the court found that the State demonstrated that the subject machine had been calibrated three months before the defendant’s arrest and provided multiple certificates demonstrating that the machine had been tested for accuracy.

Further, the State provided the defendant with documents regarding the software the machine used prior to trial, as required by New Jersey law. The court was not persuaded by the arguments set forth by the defendant’s expert that because the alcohol influence report did not indicate which two temperature probes were used during the defendant’s test, the defendant could not determine whether the probe was functioning properly at the time. Ultimately, the court found that the State produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant committed a per se DWI violation. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Speak to an Experienced New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

Many people who are suspected of driving while intoxicated are asked to submit to a breath test, but in some instances, there are grounds for precluding the results of such tests at trial. If you are accused of a first offense DWI in New Jersey following a breath test, you should speak to an attorney to determine your rights. The experienced New Jersey DWI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall can gather the evidence needed to provide you with a strong chance of a good outcome, and if you hire use, we will fight tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact us through our form online or at 877-450-8301 to schedule a meeting.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the defendant was arrested for operating a car while intoxicated and with a suspended license. His infant children were in the vehicle at the time of his arrest, and one of them was not in a car seat. He was charged with numerous crimes, including DWI. He applied for admission to PTI, but the prosecutor advised his attorney that the PTI director was not recommending acceptance of the defendant.

Allegedly, he pleaded guilty to DWI while preserving his right to appeal his denial of PTI. He received a letter later that day setting forth the reasons for his denial. The program director later reversed her decision and recommended the defendant for PTI, but the prosecutor objected and would not consent to his enrollment. The defendant then appealed the denial of his PTI application, but the court affirmed the ruling. He then appealed to the superior court.

Grounds for Denial of a PTI Application

The court explained that program directors and prosecutors must evaluate seventeen criteria as well as other factors in determining whether to reject or accept a PTI application. If prosecutors reject applications, they must set forth their conclusions and findings in precise detail, which includes stating the facts upon which the application is based and the grounds for the denial. The court noted that PTI is fundamentally an extension of the prosecutor’s decision to charge a defendant, and therefore, the decision to deny or grant PTI is a prosecutorial exercise.

A court’s review of a prosecutor’s decision to deny PTI is severely limited, and absent evidence showing; otherwise, the court will assume the prosecutor has considered all relevant information in deciding whether to accept an application. Thus, a defendant who seeks to overturn a prosecutor’s decision must convincingly and clearly show that it constituted a gross and patent abuse of discretion. In the subject case, the court found that the defendant failed to meet this burden, and no grounds existed to disturb the trial court’s decision. Thus, the ruling was affirmed.

Speak to a Trusted New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

PTI can allow people charged with a first offense DWI in New Jersey to avoid convictions and move forward with their lives without the burdens imposed by criminal trials. If you are charged with a DWI offense, you may be eligible for PTI, and you should contact an attorney to assess your rights. The trusted New Jersey DWI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall can evaluate the facts of your case and help you to pursue the best result possible under the circumstances. You can contact us through our form online or at 877-450-8301 to schedule a meeting.

The Defendant’s Conviction and Sentencing

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with driving under the influence and driving during a period of license suspension for a DWI. He pleaded guilty to the charges. In accordance with the defendant’s plea agreement, the court sentenced the defendant to a total of 360 days imprisonment, with a mandatory period of parole ineligibility that also lasted 360 days imposed as a term of probation.

Allegedly, the sentence encompassed a 180-day term of imprisonment for the DWI conviction and a 180 term of imprisonment for the conviction for driving with a suspended license. The defendant filed an appeal, arguing that his sentences were illegal, as the criminal code did not permit the courts to authorize compulsory periods of parole ineligibility as a probationary condition. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed his sentence.

Assessing Whether a Sentence is Illegal

The New Jersey Supreme Court has stated that there are two types of illegal sentences: those that are not permitted under the law and those that exceed the permissible penalties for a specific offense. In the subject case, the defendant argued that his sentence fell under the umbrella of those that are not authorized by law, as case law defining such sentences ruled that they included dispositions not authorized by the criminal code.

The court noted that the defendant’s argument that his sentences were not authorized by the criminal code was based on his interpretation of numerous statutes, and explained that questions related to statutory interpretation are legal in nature and therefore such decisions must be reviewed de novo, without deference to the decisions of the trial court. The court ultimately found that the plain language of the applicable laws permitted the sentence imposed by the trial court. Thus, it rejected the defendant’s assertion that it was illegal.

Meet with a Knowledgeable New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

If a person with a prior DWI conviction is arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated, it will likely be considered a second offense DWI in NJ, which carries significant penalties. If you are accused of a second or subsequent DWI offense, you should speak to an attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options. The knowledgeable New Jersey DWI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall can assess the facts of your case and develop a strategy to help you pursue the best outcome available under the circumstances. You can reach us via our form online or at 877-450-8301 to set up a conference.

The Defendant’s Arguments

Reportedly, the defendant was charged with a third offense DWI in 2018, which carried a penalty of a mandatory six-month jail sentence. In an effort to avoid imprisonment, the defendant sought to have his guilty plea for his second DWI, which occurred in 2012, vacated on the grounds that he was not properly advised of the penalties he would face for a subsequent conviction. The municipal court denied his motion to vacate his 2012 plea, and he appealed. The first Law Division judge that heard the matter affirmed the trial court ruling, but the second Law Division judge vacated the defendant’s plea. The State then appealed.

Consequences of the Failure to Provide a DWI Defendant with Notice

Under New Jersey law, a motion to withdraw a guilty plea must be made before sentencing, but a court may permit such a motion at a later date if it is necessary to prevent manifest injustice. In the subject case, the court ultimately found that no injustice occurred and reversed the second Law Division judge’s ruling.

The court explained that the failure to provide a defendant with notice of the penalties of a future DWI violation as required by the law does not prevent a court from imposing enhanced penalties for future DWI convictions. The court explained that the defendant’s position was essentially that the legislature intended to bar sentencing of subsequent offenders if they were not, at a minimum, orally advised of the penalties of second or third convictions. The court found that this would frustrate the purpose of the statutory intent to provide increased penalties for each subsequent offense. In sum, the court found that even if the defendant was not properly advised of the penalties of a third DWI offense at the time of his 2012 plea hearing, he could not avoid the penalties for his current crime.

Speak to an Assertive New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

A conviction for a third offense DWI can lead to jail time and other substantial penalties, but in some cases, a defendant may be able to prove that an earlier conviction should be vacated. If you are charged with a third offense DWI, you should meet with an attorney to discuss your options. The assertive New Jersey DWI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall have the skills and experience needed to obtain favorable outcomes, and, if you hire us, we will fight tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact us through our online form or at 877-450-8301 to set up a meeting.

The Defendant’s Charges

It is reported that the defendant struck a pedestrian after he was drinking at a bar. He immediately stopped, but the victim ultimately died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. When the police arrived at the scene, they described it as chaotic and found the defendant to be agitated and argumentative. He was taken to the police station, where he refused to submit to a field sobriety test. The police did not attempt to obtain a breath sample but placed the defendant under arrest and transported him to the hospital for a blood draw.

Allegedly, the defendant originally was uncooperative and asked to make a phone call, but his request was denied. He ultimately signed a consent form and gave a blood sample. He was charged with multiple offenses, including DWI and vehicular homicide. He moved to have the results of his blood draw suppressed, but his motion was denied. He pleaded guilty, and after his sentencing, he appealed.

Warrantless Blood Draws

On appeal, the defendant argued, in part, that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion to suppress the results of his blood test. The court noted that the trial court found that, considering the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s arrest, the police were in an emergency situation that required a warrantless blood draw. The court elaborated that the matter was distinguishable from a routine DWI stop, where exigent circumstances would not exist that excused a lack of warrant.

The appellate court ultimately disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning. The court explained that a warrantless search is invalid unless it falls under the exigent circumstances exception. In determining whether the exception applies, a court will examine the seriousness of the crime, the urgency of the situation, and the threat that the evidence will be destroyed. Further, if an officer can reasonably obtain a warrant, he or she must do so. In the subject case, the court found that the only urgency in the matter was caused by the police officer’s delay. Thus, the court reversed the trial court ruling.

Meet with a Seasoned New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

Many people who are charged with a first offense DWI can face significant penalties if they are convicted, and it is important for them to understand their options. If you are accused of committing a DWI crime, it is smart to meet with an attorney to determine your rights. The seasoned New Jersey DWI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall are proficient at defending people charged with driving while intoxicated, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach us via our online form or at 877-450-8301 to set up a conference.

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.

The Community Care Taking Role of Police Officers

The court noted that the officers did not pull over the defendant, block in his car, order the defendant to exit his vehicle or make any other demands. Instead, they merely engaged him in conversation to see if he had any information regarding a driver that was reportedly asleep at an intersection. Thus, the court found that the police-citizen encounter began as an inquiry that could be undertaken without grounds for suspicion.

Further, the court found that the initial line of questioning fell under the community care taking doctrine. In other words, in their role as community care takers, if they are acting in a reasonably objective manner, police officers may check on the safety or welfare of a citizen who appears to need assistance without obtaining a warrant of violating the Constitution. In the subject case, the court found that there was an objectively reasonable basis for the officers to exercise the community care taking function, and after doing so, had a reasonable basis to administer field sobriety tests.  As such, it upheld the defendant’s conviction.

Speak to a Knowledgeable New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

In some instances, people who are stopped in their vehicles can be arrested and charged with a first offense DWI. If you are faced with DWI charges, it is prudent to meet with a lawyer to determine your options for seeking a successful result. The knowledgeable DUI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall are dedicated to defending people charged with DWI offenses, and if you engage our services, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact us via our online form or at 877-450-8301 to schedule a meeting.

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.

Evidence of Intoxication

On appeal, the defendant argued, in part, that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he operated a vehicle while intoxicated. The court disagreed and affirmed his arrest. The court noted that the DWI statute requires proof that a defendant operated a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor to obtain a conviction. The defendant conceded that he operated his SUV but argued the evidence did not show he was under the influence at the time. The court explained that a driver is under the influence of alcohol if he or she suffers from diminished physical coordination or mental faculties.

Intoxication includes not only obvious signs of drunkenness but also any degree of impairment that impacts a person’s ability to safely operate a vehicle. In the subject case, the court found that the arresting officers testified credibly regarding the defendant’s condition at the time of his arrest, and that their testimony was more than adequate to support the defendant’s conviction.

Meet with an experienced New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

Many people mistakenly believe they cannot be charged with a first offense DWI in NJ absent chemical testing, but blood alcohol levels are not required for DWI arrests or convictions. If you are accused of committing a DWI offense, it is advisable to speak to a lawyer as soon as possible regarding your options. The experienced New Jersey DWI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall are skilled at helping people charged with DWI offenses fight to protect their rights, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly to help you pursue a just result. You can reach us through our form online or at 877-450-8301 to set up a conference.

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.

The Right to a Speedy Trial

A court will reverse a denial of a speedy trial motion only where it clearly demonstrates an error of law. The courts conduct a four-part test to determine whether a defendant’s Constitutional right to a speedy trial has been infringed upon. Pursuant to the test, they analyze the reason for the delay, the length of the delay, the defendant’s proclamation of the right to a speedy trial, and the prejudice the defendant suffered because of the delay.

No one factor is determinative or a sufficient reason to support the finding that the defendant’s right to a speedy trial has been violated. Further, each case is evaluated independently, based on its unique facts. In the subject case, the appellate court found that the delays were attributable, at least in part, to the defendant, and any prejudice she suffered was negligible. Thus, it affirmed the trial court ruling.

Speak to a Trusted New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

Being charged with a first offense DWI can be a harrowing experience, and most DWI defendants would like to have their cases resolved as quickly as possible. If you are charged with a DWI offense it is critical to seek prompt legal counsel regarding your rights. The New Jersey DUI lawyers of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall are adept at helping people charged with DWI crimes in the pursuit of justice, and if you hire us, we will work tirelessly to help you fight to protect your liberties. You can contact us through our form online or at 877-450-8301 to set up a meeting.

The Defendant’s Arrest

It is reported that the arresting officer received a call regarding a car that was parked in the middle of an intersection. When he arrived at the scene, he observed the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of a parked car. The defendant was playing very loud music, was slumped over, and had a small child in the back of the car. When the officer spoke with the defendant, he noticed his speech was slurred, and he had a half-empty bottle of liquor in the counsel.

Allegedly, the defendant agreed to submit to field sobriety testing. The officer noted that the defendant had an odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant was unable to perform the testing and was subsequently arrested and charged with multiple crimes, including third offense DWI. He was convicted, after which he appealed, arguing in part that the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to sustain a DWI conviction based on the observational prong of the statute. Upon review, the appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

The Sufficiency of Observational Evidence in DWI Cases

Under New Jersey law, it is illegal for a person to operate a vehicle while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The State can prove a defendant violated the DWI statute via proof of the defendant’s blood-alcohol level or by demonstrating the defendant’s physical condition at the time of the operation of the vehicle. The law does not require a person to be overwhelmingly intoxicated; rather, it is adequate to show that the defendant consumed enough alcohol to detrimentally impact his or her mental faculties or physical coordination. In the subject case, the court found that there was ample evidence to support the assertion that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. Thus, his conviction was affirmed.

Confer with a Dedicated New Jersey DWI Defense Attorney

A conviction for a third offense DWI in New Jersey can result in significant penalties, including fines and jail time, and it is prudent for anyone charged with such a crime to confer with a lawyer as soon as possible. If you are accused of a DWI crime, the dedicated New Jersey DWI defense attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. Marshall have the skills and resources needed to help you seek a favorable outcome in consideration of the circumstances. If you hire us, we will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach us via our online form or at 877-450-8301 to schedule a meeting.