April 30, 2008
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
DAVID LOVE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, BMA-004-06-07.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted April 22, 2008
Before Judges Coburn and Grall.
Defendant, David Love, was convicted in municipal court and then in the Law Division, at a trial de novo, of driving while intoxicated, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. On appeal he offers the following arguments:
THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE OPERATION.
THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE AT THE TIME OF OPERATION.
After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that his arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Roma in his thorough and well-reasoned written opinion of June 18, 2007.
Nonetheless, we add the followings comments.
A police officer responded to the scene of a motor vehicle accident at 189 West Forest Avenue in Teaneck. The officer found defendant's vehicle on the lawn of a house, and it appeared that the vehicle's rear had struck a car parked in the driveway, causing that car to strike another car in the driveway. Both of these cars were owned by residents of the house. Love was sleeping in the driver's seat of his motor vehicle. The keys were in the ignition and the headlights were on. Defendant conceded at trial that he was intoxicated when the officer spoke to him at the scene of the accident. The defendant said that the last thing he recalled was leaving a nearby road, Route 4. The breathalyzer test was .17.
Given these circumstances, there was more than enough evidence that defendant was intoxicated when he operated his motor vehicle. See, e.g., State v. Mulcahy, 107 N.J. 467 (1987); State v. Chapman, 43 N.J. 300 (1964); State v. Dickens, 130 N.J. Super. 73 (App. Div. 1974).
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.