Spring 2010 Mun Law Rev rev 3/11 1. Prior refusal counts for 3rd DWI State v Ciancaglini 411 NJ Super. 280 (App. Div. 2010) In this appeal from a DWI conviction, after prior separate DWI and refusal convictions, this Appellate panel disagrees with the holding of State v. DiSomma 262 N.J. Super. 375 (App. Div. 1993), and hold that the prior refusal conviction does count toward making this a third offense. The court feels this holding is consistent with a line of cases both before and after DiSomma concluding that a prior DWI conviction counts toward enhancement of the sentence imposed for a refusal conviction. See, e.g., State v. Tekel, 281 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 1995). The court also held that double jeopardy does not bar reinstatement of the sentence originally imposed in the municipal court for a third DWI offense, which was reduced in the Law Division to a sentence for a first DWI offense. 2. New trial ordered where Judge conducted questioning of defense expert State v. O’Brien 200 NJ 520 (2009) Defendant was entitled to face a single adversary, the State. He should not have had to bear the consequences of a judge who appeared to disbelieve him and his expert witness, revealed that disbelief to the jury, and supported a witness adverse to him. Because that conduct was clearly capable of producing an unjust result, a new trial is in order. 3. Refusal does not merge into DWI State v Eckert 410 NJ Super. 389 (App. Div. 2009 A conviction for refusal to submit to a breath examination cannot be merged with a DWI conviction. Such a plea agreement violated applicable merger principles as well as the Court's Guidelines for Operation of Plea Agreements in the Municipal Courts of New Jersey. 4. Alcotest readings do not need to be truncated to three decimals State v Rivera 411 NJ Super. 492 (App. Div. 2010) Reviewing defendant's challenge to the admission of Alcotest results relied upon to support a per se violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, the court rejected a suggested methodology requiring the State to truncate the intermediate calculations of the relative and absolute upper tolerance limits when discerning whether the Alcotest readings obtained were valid. The court concluded the Supreme Court in State v. Chun 194 N.J. 54, cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 158, (2008) expressed no preference for truncating the various interim calculations on Worksheet A, which would have the resultant effect of lowering the range of tolerance below that approved by the Court with the concomitant result of falsely increasing the number of invalid Alcotest results, precluding justifiable prosecutions for per se violations of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. 5.
AG use of force reports are public records
O’Shea v West Milford 410 NJ
1