October 7, 2011
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
DANIEL MARTINEZ, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 10-01-0096.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted September 26, 2011 -
Before Judges Parrillo and Grall.
We granted the State leave to appeal from an order suppressing evidence, specifically a handgun seized in the course of a motor vehicle stop. The State contends that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence after finding the motor vehicle stop was not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.
The facts are not in dispute. Indeed, the State and defendant Daniel Martinez rely upon the trial court's findings of fact, which are set forth in a written opinion filed on December 9, 2010. After considering the court's opinion and the State's arguments in light of the controlling legal principles, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Gooden Brown in her thorough and thoughtful decision. The State's arguments are best characterized as disagreement with the judge's assessment of the reasonable inferences available from the undisputed facts, but disagreement with inferences drawn by a trial court is not a basis for reversal unless the court was so "clearly mistaken" or "wide of the mark" as to require intervention in the interest of justice. State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 245 (2007). Applying that standard, we have no reason to intervene.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.