HANDLING DRUG, DWI & MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS IN MUNICIPAL COURT

HANDLING DRUG, DWI & MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS IN MUNICIPAL COURT
September 15, 2008 5:30 PM to 9:30 PM
New Jersey Law Center, New Brunswick

Speakers include:
HON. JOAN ROBINSON GROSS
Presiding Judge, Union County

KENNETH A. VERCAMMEN, ESQ.
Past Chair, NJSBA Municipal Court Section
Editor: “New Jersey Municipal Court Review”
2006 NJSBA Municipal Court Practitioner of the Year
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates (Edison)

WILLIAM G. BRIGIANI, ESQ.
Brigiani, Cohen, & Schneider (East Brunswick)

JOHN MENZEL, ESQ.
Moore & Menzel (Point Pleasant)

Dennis Driscoll
Municipal Prosecutor (Denville, Montville, Rockaway Township, Morris Plains & Netcong)
You’ll receive a CD containing over 2,000 pages of forms, discovery motions, briefs and orders, plus the 264 page Judge King Chun report, Chun opinion and Attorney General Guidelines
This practical program featured a top notch panel of experienced practitioners and a Municipal Court judge. They provide instructions on handling the more serious drug, DWI and traffic offenses someone id likely to confront and suggest effective strategies for handling the.
Includes

EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES & PRACTICE TIPS YOU CAN USE TO REPRESENT YOUR CLIENTS ACCUSED OF MORE SERIOUS DRUG & TRAFFIC OFFENSES INCLUDING…
• Lab reports in drug cases
• Driving while suspended and enhanced penalties
• Jurisdiction issues for serious motor vehicle accidents
• Increased refusal penalties
• Assault
• Defenses to no-insurance cases
• Drug recognition expert cross-examination
• How to impress the Court and not annoy the Court staff
• Forms, motions and demand letters
• Criminal case law developments during the past year
• Sentencing arguments in multiple offense cases
• What’s new on the Alcotest 7110 breath testing machine
• New laws and pending legislation
…and more

Presented in cooperation with the NJSBA Municipal Court Practice Section, NJSBA General Practice Section, and the NJSBA Young Lawyers Division

For registration costs and details, contact
New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education
One Constitution Square, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901-1520
732-249-5100
http://www.njicle.com/seminar.aspx?sid=362 732-249-5100
program: S1507d-14380

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice- Forms available

NJSBA Annual Meeting
Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice
Thursday, May 22 2008 

8am - 9:30 am Diamond A

Could not attend? Need forms?
Send email to Kenvnjlaws@verizon.net and advise which form you would like. The form will be sent to you within 2 days, or fax us your email address 732-572-0030 fax

Name ___________________

Email ___________________
An overview of the top 25 municipal court cases of the year and interactive discussion of the most current topics in municipal court.
Speakers: 
Paris P. Eliades, Esq. 
Daggett Kraemer Eliades Kovach & Ursin, Sparta
Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq.

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates,
Edison
Past Chair Municipal Court Section
2005 NJSBA Municipal Court Attorney
of the Year
Editor- NJ Municipal Court Law Review

CD with forms and Materials
provided to all attendees!
02 Lt of rep only.doc
02 DISC.doc
02a DISC to DMV.doc
02d Disc_Complainant.doc
03D Retainer-MUN COURT.doc
04 Hearing notice.doc
100 Cross Exam Q-DWI.doc
AG Guidelines binding.doc
Appeal Fee Bill to Client.doc
atty_guidelines_0505.pdf
Bail reduce Mt.doc
Brief post convict vacate plea.doc
Conditional Discharge Pet Cl.doc
constructive poss.doc
Court cannot handle discovery.doc
Crim interview aba.doc
crim- Specific defenses.doc
Defense Affidavit to Client.doc
DISC to Client from Prosecutor.doc
DUI Motions non disc- jury.doc
DWI- Blood defense brief.doc
DWI- expert letter.doc
DWS Fine reduced parking ticket.doc
Expungement recommend.doc
MIRANDA br.doc
More disc br.doc
Mt for Civil Reservation.doc
Mt forSlap.doc
Mt to be Relieved.doc
Mt- Dismiss No disc mun Pros.doc
Mun Ct Interview.doc
MVC_ DMV - Follow-up Hearing.doc
MVC_ DMV points for Atom.doc
No discovery dismiss Brief.doc
No Show in Court.doc
OBJ TO LAB CERT.doc
OPRA Brief Crim.doc
Order mark try or dismiss.doc
Order to be Relieved.doc
Pros- missing abstract.doc
Refusal Brief wrong statement.doc
Storm Cert priv pros.doc
Sup-Miranda.doc
SUPPRESSION MT.doc
SUPPRESSION BRIEF.doc
Chun discovery brief
www.BeNotGuilty.com

Can’t attend? Need forms?
Send email to Kenvnjlaws@verizon.net and the materials will be sent to you within 2 days, or fax us your email address 732-572-0030 fax

Name ___________________

Email ___________________

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice Thursday, May 22 (8 - 9:30 a.m.)

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice Thursday, May 22 (8 - 9:30 a.m.)
NJSBA Annual Meeting and Convention.

NJSBA Annual Meeting and Convention Annual Meeting and Convention 2008 Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort in Atlantic City May 21 - 23. The NJ State Bar Association will hold its 2008 Annual Meeting and Convention at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, right on the Atlantic City Boardwalk. A favorite location for the NJSBA's annual conference, the boardwalk offers the Atlantic City seaside right outside the doors of the resort. Attend from May 21-22 for education, top speakers and networking with the top legal professionals in the state and your fellow NJSBA members.

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice Thursday, May 22 (8 - 9:30 a.m.)
Municipal Court Practice Section NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education (Municipal Court Practice Track)

Trial Attorney Certification: 1.5 criminal credits pending
NY CLE (Transitional & Non-transitional): 1.5 professional practice credits
PA CLE: 1.5 substantive credits pending ($8 fee payable to ICLE)
An overview of the top 25 municipal court cases of the year and interactive discussion of the most current topics in municipal court.

Speakers: Paris P. Eliades, Esq. - Daggett Kraemer Eliades Kovach & Ursin, Sparta
Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq. - Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, Edison

http://www.njsba.com/calendar_events/index.cfm?fuseaction=annual_mtg#207

Alcotest Update - State v. Chun
Municipal Court Practice Section NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education (Municipal Court Practice Track)

Thursday, May 22 (1 - 2:30 p.m.)

Trial Attorney Certification: 1.5 criminal credits pending
NY CLE (Non-transitional): 1.5 professional practice credits
PA CLE: 1.5 substantive credits pending ($8 fee payable to ICLE)

An analysis of the recent Chun discussion and the documentation required in order to admit the Alcotest 7110 into evidence.

Speaker: Jeffrey E. Gold, Esq. Vice Chair, Municipal Court Practice Section Gold & Farrow, PC, Cherry Hill

Brief to Dismiss DWI Summons Based on Police Failure to comply with NJ Attorney General Guideline on DWI /Refusal to give the defendant a copy of th

Brief to Dismiss DWI Summons Based on Police Failure to comply with NJ Attorney General Guideline on DWI /Refusal to give the defendant a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report upon arrest

The mandatory guidelines established by our Attorney General were not followed in this case. The "ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINE: PROSECUTION OF DWI & REFUSAL VIOLATIONS" of January 24, 2005 requires the arresting police officer to give the defendant a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report. The police violated this new AG Guideline.



The Attorney General issued the following Guideline to all Prosecutors and Police on January 24, 2005:



TO: ALL COUNTY PROSECUTORS

ALL MUNICIPAL PROSECUTORS

FROM: PETER C. HARVEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: ATTORNEY GENERAL GUIDELINE:

PROSECUTION OF DWI & REFUSAL VIOLATIONS

DATE: January 24, 2005



Section 3 of P.L. 2004, chapter 8, 1 included a provision that the Attorney General shall promulgate guidelines concerning the prosecution of DWI and DWI refusal violations. The Legislative purpose for these Guidelines is “to promote the uniform enforcement of [the DWI and refusal statutes.]”



Therefore, pursuant to P.L. 2004, c.8, §3, and the authority granted to the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey by the Criminal Justice Act of 1970, N.J.S.A. 52:17B-97 et seq., and N.J.S.A. 2B:12-27, the following Guidelines are issued to All County and Municipal Prosecutors for the Prosecution of DWI and Refusal Violations.


These Guidelines replace all previously issued memoranda from the Division of Criminal Justice or the Attorney General, regarding the Standard (Refusal) Statements for DWI refusal,

CDL/DWI refusal and OVWI refusal. Please inform all of the police departments and law enforcement agencies in your county.

These Guidelines do not, however, replace or rescind any Attorney General Law Enforcement Directives issued regarding DWI or DWI related subjects. E.g., Attorney General........



On page 20 of the Attorney General Guideline, the defendant shall be given a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report. The police violated the Attorney General Guideline, and failed to provide the defendant, after processing, with the Alcohol Influence Report.


Guideline- Page 19:

Fulfilling the Statutory Requirements for Implied Consent by Law Enforcement

While at the law enforcement facility, the defendant should also be continuously observed. In addition, during the observation period, and prior to the administration of any chemical breath testing, the provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2, N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.24a through e, or N.J.S.A. 12:7-55, regarding implied consent, must have been followed.

Those statutory provisions are:

#1 The police or law enforcement officer “shall inform the person
tested of his[/her] rights” to be furnished with a copy of the record
of any chemical breath tests administered. [This was not done in this case.]
This first provision is designed to inform the defendant that a record of any chemical breath tests administered will be made and that the defendant is entitled to receive a copy of that record. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(b); N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.24b; N.J.S.A. 12:7-55b. That record, pursuant to

N.J.A.C. 13:51-3.6(a)2, is the “Alcohol Influence Report Form, Breathalyzer Check List.”

N.J.A.C. 13:51 Appendix. With the introduction of the Alcotest® 7110 MKIII-C, a printed record, in the form of an Alcohol Influence Report, will be automatically printed by the...



Guideline- Page 20:

Alcotest® 7110 MKIII-C. N.J.A.C. 13:51-3.6(c)2.

Following the administration of any breath tests, regardless of the results obtained, and the normal processing of a defendant, the defendant should be given a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report.



#2 The person “shall be permitted to have such samples taken and
chemical tests of his[/her] breath, urine or blood made by a person
or physician of his own selection.”


This second provision is designed to inform the defendant of his/her statutory right to obtain an independent test of their own breath, blood or urine. N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(c); N.J.S.A. 39:3-10.24c; N.J.S.A. 12:7-55c. State v. Jalkiewicz, 303 N.J. Super. 430, 432, 434, 435 (App. Div. 1997), questioning State v. Broadley, 281 N.J. Super. 230 (Law Div. 1992), certif. den. 135 N.J. 468 (1994); State v. Hicks, 228 N.J. Super. 541, 544 (App. Div. 1988), certif. den. 127 N.J. 324 (1990); State v. Ettore, 228 N.J. Super. at 30-1.





Guideline- Page 18: The need to obtain chemical breath test evidence, in a prompt manner, due to the speed with which alcohol is dissipated by the body is also discussed.



Guideline- Page 19: Breath samples are a nontestimonial form of evidence. State v. Macuk, 57 N.J. 1, 14 (1970). Accordingly, a defendant

does not have a Fifth Amendment right to consult with an attorney

before taking the test, nor does a defendant have a right to have an

attorney present when the test is performed. State v. Leavitt, 107

N.J. 534, 536, 540 (1987); see also, Macuk, supra, 57 N.J. at 16,

(holding that police officers are not required to give defendants

Miranda warnings prior to administration of [a B]reathalyzer test

because "fundamental reason for the Miranda rules is just not

present"). Additionally, because breath sample evidence "is

evanescent and may disappear in a few hours," State v. Dyal, 97

N.J. 229, 239 (1984), police must administer the [B]reathalyzer test

within a reasonable time after the arrest in order to obtain an

accurate reading. Leavitt, supra, 107 N.J. at 541; see also, State v.

Pandoli, 109 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1970) (noting "rapidity

with which the passage of time and physiological processes tend to

eliminate evidence of ingested alcohol in the system"); State v.

Corrado, 184 N.J. Super. 561, 568 (App. Div. 1982) (holding

one-hour delay in consenting to take [a B]reathalyzer test violated

Implied Consent Law).

State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. at 487-8.

The Defense has filed this motion to Dismiss the DWI and refusal Summons Based on Police Failure to comply with NJ Attorney General Guideline on DWI and Refusal. The police failed to abide by this mandatory instruction. Therefore, violation of an Attorney General guideline should result in dismissal.



NJSA 39:4-50.3. sets forth the Method of analyses; approval of techniques; certification of analysts; reports; forms in DWI cases in New Jersey"

"Chemical analyses of the arrested person's breath, to be considered valid under the provisions of this act, shall have been performed according to methods approved by the Attorney General, and by a person certified for this purpose by the Attorney General. The Attorney General is authorized to approve satisfactory techniques or methods, to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analyses, and to make certifications of such individuals, which certifications shall be subject to termination or revocation at the discretion of the Attorney General. The Attorney General shall prescribe a uniform form for reports of such chemical analysis of breath to be used by law enforcement officers and others acting in accordance with the provisions of this act. Such forms shall be sequentially numbered. Each chief of police, in the case of forms distributed to law enforcement officers and others in his municipality, or the other officer, board, or official having charge or control of the police department where there is no chief, and the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles and the Superintendent of State Police, in the case of such forms distributed to law enforcement officers and other personnel in their divisions, shall be responsible for the furnishing and proper disposition of such uniform forms. Each such responsible party shall prepare or cause to be prepared such records and reports relating to such uniform forms and their disposition in such manner and at such times as the Attorney General shall prescribe."

Therefore, if a Police officer fails to follow the methods and forms of the Attorney General, any breath test is invalid.



The Appellate Division recently court recognized that all Police Officers are bound by Attorney General Guidelines.

See In the Matter of William Carroll, 339 N.J. Super. 429 (App. Div. 2001) for a discussion of AG Guidelines and their enforceability. Judge [now Justice] Wallace wrote:

"In this regard we note that the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of this State. N.J.S.A. 52: 17B s-98. The Legislature has authorized the Attorney General to provide for "uniform and efficient enforcement of the criminal law and the administration of criminal justice throughout the State." Ibid. Consistent with this authority, the Attorney General has issued guidelines concerning the appropriate application of the criminal laws.

Our Supreme Court has acknowledged the validity of various guidelines issued by the Attorney General. See generally State v Brimage, 153 N.J. 1, 24-25 (1998) (the Attorney General was instructed to reevaluate and issue new plea offer guidelines to assist all counties in consistently applying the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 1997); Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 109-111 (1995)(holding constitutional, as modified, Attorney General's Guidelines for implementation of convicted sex offender registration and community notification statutes); Rawlings v. Police Dep't of Jersey City, 133 N.J. 182, 192 (1993) (Court cites with approval the Attorney General's Law Enforcement Drug Screening Guidelines); State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 32 (1992) (Court requires the Attorney General to issue guidelines which will assist prosecutors in rendering uniform decisions concerning enhanced drug testing)."

If a police officer fails to follow Attorney General's Guidelines on DWI and does not give the defendant a copy of the Alcohol Influence Report Form, then the DWI and/or refusal should be dismissed or reading suppressed.

Middlesex County Bar Association 3rd Annual Awards Dinner

Middlesex County Bar Association 3rd Annual Awards Dinner
On March 19, 2008, the Middlesex County Bar Association will hold its third annual awards dinner at Sunny Palace Restaurant on Route 18 South in East Brunswick. Awards will be given to bar members in the following areas: Pro Bono; Non-Litigation; Civil Trial Practice; Criminal Trial Practice; and Municipal Court Practice.

The guest speaker will be Hon. Travis L. Francis, AJSC.
The MCBA will pay tribute to these bar members for their significant contributions to their respective practice areas.
The following awards will be given:

-Pro Bono Attorney-of-the Year Henry Gurshman
-Civil Trial Practitioner-of-the-Year John Gorman
-Criminal Trial Attorney-of-the-Year Jim Nolan & Nicole Albert
-Municipal Court Practitioner-of-the-Year Kenneth Vercammen
-Young Lawyer of the Year Kimberly Yonta Aronow
-Transactional Attorney of the Year Michael Schaff

The purpose of the Awards is to recognize attorneys practicing in Middlesex County and adjacent municipalities who devote a significant portion of their law practice to their respective practice areas and exhibit one or more of the following:

- Leadership in the potential candidate’s field of practice;
- Significant, tangible contributions to the Bar, such as participation in educational panels, Bar committees, etc, pertaining to non-litigation issues;
- Contributions to the community and/or charitable endeavors;
- A record promoting participation and involvement in the MCBA and collegiality within the Association; and
- A reputation for personal and professional integrity.

The evening will commence with a cocktail hour (cash bar) at 6:00 p.m. and dinner will be served at 7:00 p.m. The cost to attend is $35 for MCBA Young Lawyers, $40 for MCBA Members and $45 for all others, in advance.
For additional information, contact the Bar Office at (732) 828-3433, ext. 102.
More details at http://www.mcbalaw.com/cde.cfm?event=186648

Sunny Palace
1069 Route 18 South
East Brunswick, NJ 08816

Notice of Claim must be served on correct Public Entity or Personal Injury case dismissed

Leidy v. County of Ocean 02-28-08
A-4127-06T2

In dismissing plaintiff's personal injury action against a public entity (County of Monmouth), the Court held that where the actual tortfeasor's identity has not been actively obscured and plaintiff has not been thwarted in his or her own diligent efforts to determine the responsible party, then plaintiff's misidentification does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting relaxation of the Tort Claims Act 90- day time constraint, N.J.S.A. 59:8-8.

Prompt inspection of the area within a reasonable time following plaintiff's motorcycle accident would have led to identification of the County of Monmouth as the party responsible for maintaining the portion of the roadway, bordering Ocean County, where the incident occurred. Moreover, the delay in notice, occasioned by the lack of any reasonable efforts by plaintiff in the interim 90 days to ascertain ownership of the roadway, likely prejudiced defendant in its efforts to investigate the accident scene which, due to time and weather, may have changed.

Mark Champion v. David W. Dunfee, Jr. v. Kristi Kakoda

01-31-08 A-3167-06T2

We hold that a guest passenger who neither owns nor
controls the motor vehicle, who enjoys no special relationship
to, and has not substantially encouraged the wrongful behavior
of, the actual tortfeasor, owes no affirmative duty to a fellow
passenger to prevent a visibly intoxicated driver from driving
his own automobile.

Camie Livsey v. Mercury Insurance Group

10-24-07 A-1238-06T5

Uninsured motorist benefits are available to a plaintiff in
a random, drive-by shooting.

Vincent F. Baldassano v. High Point Insurance Company

11-08-07 A-2183-06T1

Plaintiff was a passenger in a car involved in a one
vehicle accident. He settled with the driver for the driver's
policy limit of $100,000 but claimed his damages exceeded that
amount and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from his
auto insurance carrier, High Point Insurance Company (High
Point). The UIM claim was denied because plaintiff's UIM limit
of $100,000 had been met by the driver's insurance policy.
Plaintiff claimed that in 1998 when he first purchased the
policy, the agent failed to explain the coverage options, the
agent checked the boxes on the coverage selection form, and the
agent failed to provide a buyer's guide. Plaintiff renewed the
policy twelve times before the accident without inquiring about
or changing the policy limits and transferred the policy twice
to new vehicles.

We affirmed and held that under N.J.S.A. 17:28-1.9 the
insurer is immune from liability under the circumstances
presented where (1) the insured executed a coverage selection
form on which the coverage selections had been checked by the
agent; (2) the insured renewed the policy twelve times before
the accident; and (3) the insured could not refute the carrier's
claim that the agent provided "a written notice identifying [all
coverage information] and containing a buyer's guide and
coverage selection form" as required by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-23(a) and
(c).

ABA CRIMINAL LAW COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER Fall 2007

ABA CRIMINAL LAW COMMITTEE NEWSLETTER Fall 2007
ABA General Practice, Solo and Small Firm Division American Bar Association

Brian T Hermanson Ponca City, Oklahoma Chair
(580) 762-0020 bhermanson@oklawhoma.com
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. Deputy Chair / co- Editor Edison, NJ

In this Issue:
1. Hearsay Not Admissible at Trial based on Crawford Decision
2. Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea in Superior Court
____________________________________________________


1. Hearsay Not Admissible at Trial based on Crawford Decision
By Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.

Prior to 2004, in Municipal Court and criminal cases, statements and documents could often be introduced into evidence over defense counsel’s objection. In the landmark decision of Crawford v. Washington. 541 U.S. 36 (2004) the United States Supreme Court ruled that testimonial hearsay may not be admitted against a defendant at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross examination.

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court addressed the protections afforded by the Confrontation Clause. The defendant in Crawford was charged with assault and attempted murder; defendant was convicted of assault. Id. at 38, 124 S. Ct. at 1357, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 184. The trial judge admitted a tape-recorded statement of the defendant's wife, given to police while she was herself a suspect, after the judge found the statement reliable. Id. at 38-40, 124 S. Ct. at 1356-58, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 184-86. 
 The Court held that "[admitting statements deemed reliable by a judge is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation." Id. at 61, 124 S. Ct. at 1370, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 199. "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty." Id. at 62, 124 S. Ct. at 1371, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 199. The Court reversed defendant's conviction. Id. at 68-69, 124 S. Ct. at 1374, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 203. In Crawford, the Court's express holding applied only to "testimonial" evidence:
Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law — . . . as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether. Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. We leave for another day any effort to spell out a comprehensive definition of "testimonial." [541 U.S. at 68, 124 S. Ct. at 1374, 158 L. Ed 2d at 203 (footnote omitted)].
In Crawford: “the United States Supreme Court sharply departed from its prior view of how hearsay exceptions could be reconciled with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Confrontation Clause provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Before Crawford, the Supreme Court had held that hearsay did not offend the Confrontation Clause if the out-of-court statement fell within a “firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S. Ct. 2531, 2538, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 608 (1980). Now, under Crawford, testimonial statements made by witnesses absent from trial may be “admitted only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.” 541 U.S. at 59, 124 S. Ct. at 1369, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 197. In Crawford, the Court did not precisely define “testimonial statements,” but it provided this guidance: “Whatever else the term [testimonial] covers, it applies at a minimum to prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial, and to police interrogations.” 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S. Ct. at 1374, 158 L. Ed. 2d at 203.

The US Supreme Court in 2006 next had the opportunity to determine hearsay issues when the court was petitioned to decide if 911 calls are admissible if the witness will not come to court.

In Davis v. Washington 126 S. Ct. 2266 (2006) the court held 911 Calls Sometimes Admissible and Not Hearsay. The Court elaborated on the meaning of testimonial:

Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.
[Id. at ____, 126 S. Ct. at 2273-74, 165 L. Ed. 2d at 237.]

The New Jersey Appellate Division on March 6, 2006 had previously determined that an Eyewitness 911 Call to Report Attack Admissible as an Excited Utterance. State in the Interest of J.A 385 NJ Super. 544 (App. Div. 2006)

In this adjudication of delinquency, the non testifying eyewitness's description of an assailant -- which was made to the police by phone while he witnessed the attack and pursued the fleeing suspect -- was a present sense impression under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(1) and an excited utterance under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(2), and its admission into evidence did not violate the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington. 541 U.S. 36 (2004).

Certification has been granted by the NJ Supreme Court in the J.A. case. The New Jersey Supreme Court is hearing several other appeals on the Crawford admissibility issue.

In State v Buda 389 NJ Super. 241 (App. Div. 2006) the Court held that an excited utterance made by a 3 year old child abuse victim to a DYFS worker at a hospital, although admissible under state evidence law, is inadmissible in this case as a result of evolving federal constitutional jurisprudence under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), and Davis Ed. 2d 224 (2006). Certification to the NJ Supreme Court was also granted on May 21, 2007.

Under Caselaw decided in 1985, a lab certificate was admitted in DWI cases as a business record under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6) and as a public record under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(8).
In State v. Berezansky 386 NJ Super. 84 (App. Div. 2006) there was a challenge to the admissibility of a DWI blood test result. The court held the Chemist’s Testimony is Required in DWI Blood Case if an objection is filed by the defense.
Based on the Crawford decision, the Appellate Division in Berezansky determined that a conviction for driving while intoxicated based on a blood test had to be reversed and remanded for a new trial because the defendant’s right of confrontation was violated by admitting into evidence a lab certificate that attested to his blood alcohol content without giving him the opportunity to cross- examine the chemist who analyzed his blood sample and prepared the certificate. Crawford v. Washington requires state to introduce live testimony by the chemist in blood cases.

The Court rejected the State's reliance upon the business record or government record exceptions to the hearsay rule to permit the admission of the lab certificate. The rationale for those exceptions is that such a document is likely to be reliable because it was prepared and preserved in the ordinary course of the operation of a business or governmental entity, and not created primarily as evidence for trial. See N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6). See generally Biunno, Current N.J. Rules of Evidence, comment 1 to N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6); comment 2 to N.J.R.E. 803(c)(8) (2005). The certificate at issue is not a record prepared or maintained in the ordinary course of government business; it was prepared specifically in order to prove an element of the crime and offered in lieu of producing the qualified individual who actually performed the test.
 Here, defendant not only was denied his constitutional right to confront the certificate's preparer, he was not even afforded an adequate opportunity to challenge the certificate's reliability, because the State failed to provide requested documentation regarding the laboratory analysis of the blood. The Court also noted by analogy, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19c requires the prosecutor to provide a defendant with all documentation relating to a proffered lab certificate as a condition for admission of that certificate attesting to the identification of a controlled dangerous substance.
Certification has been granted in Berezansky.

The next major case to examine the Crawford case was State v. Renshaw 390 NJ Super. 456 (App. Div. 2007). In this case the state introduced a certificate signed by a Nurse who drew blood. The Court held that the admission in evidence of the Uniform Certification for Bodily Specimens Taken in a Medically Acceptable Manner, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A: 62A-11, without the opportunity for cross-examination of the nurse who drew the blood, and over the objection of defendant, runs afoul of the right of confrontation protected both by the United States and the New Jersey Constitutions. Therefore, the Nurse Can Be Required to Testify in DWI Blood Case.

Another case where the Court Ruled that Defendant Can Contest DWI Blood Lab Reports As Hearsay was State v. Kent 391 NJ Super. 352 (App. Div. 2007)
Defendant was convicted of DWI following a single-car rollover accident, and the Law Division affirmed his conviction. At the municipal trial, the State placed into evidence, among other proofs, (1) a blood sample certificate pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A: 62A-11 from a private hospital employee who had extracted blood from defendant and (2) reports from a State Police laboratory that had tested the blood samples. The authors of those hearsay documents did not appear at trial.

The court reaffirmed the holdings in State v. Renshaw, 390 N.J. Super. 456 (App. Div. 2007) (regarding blood sample certificates) and in State v. Berezansky, 385 N.J. Super. 84 (App. Div. 2006) (regarding State Police laboratory reports) concluding that the hearsay documents are "testimonial" under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and that defendant was thus deprived of his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.
The court also noted that unless our Supreme Court determines otherwise, the confrontation clause of Article I, Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution does not appear to independently require such cross-examination beyond current federal precedents interpreting the Sixth Amendment. Additionally, the court recommends that legislative and/or rule-making initiatives be pursued to avoid placing undue testimonial burdens on health care workers and law enforcement personnel who may create documents relevant to drunk driving prosecutions.

However, Defendant's DWI conviction in Renshaw was affirmed on independent grounds, based upon the arresting officer's numerous observations indicative of defendant's intoxication, and defendant's admission of drinking.

In DWI breathalyzer cases, for decades DWI breathalyzer certificates were admitted as an exception to Hearsay Rules. Based on Crawford, the Appellate Division revisited the admissibility of these paper certificates. In State v. Dorman, 393 NJ Super. 28 (App. Div. 2007) the court held Hearsay Rules do not apply to Breathalyzer certs. In this DWI appeal, the court held that notwithstanding the Supreme Court's holding in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68-69, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1374, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 203 (2004), a breathalyzer machine certificate of operability offered by the State to meet its burden of proof under State v. Garthe, 1 N.J. 1 (1996), remains admissible as a business record under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6).

The NJ Supreme Court also granted Certification in unreported cases on the same issue, State v. Sweet, A-0091-05. In Sweet, the Breathalyzer Inspection Certification were also found to be admissible outside of Crawford.

Kenneth A. Vercammen is a Middlesex County trial attorney who has published 125 articles in national and New Jersey publications on business and litigation topics. He often lectures to trial lawyers of the American Bar
Association, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association.

He is a highly regarded lecturer on litigation issues for the American Bar Association, ICLE, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association. His articles have been published by New Jersey Law Journal, ABA Law Practice Management Magazine, and New Jersey Lawyer. He is the Editor in Chief of the New Jersey Municipal Court Law Review. Mr. Vercammen is a recipient of the NJSBA- YLD Service to the Bar Award.
He has served as a Special Acting Prosecutor in nine different cities and towns in New Jersey and also successfully handled over One thousand Municipal Court and Superior Court matters in the past 12 years.
In his private practice, he has devoted a substantial portion of his
professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated matters. He has
appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week on personal injury matters, Municipal Court trials, and contested Probate hearings.

2. Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea in Lower criminal courts Court
Some individuals don’t want to spend money to hire an attorney, but instead just plead guilty at their initial court appearance. They should read the following before representing themselves:
1 If you plead guilty you will have a criminal record
2. Before the judge can accept your guilty plea, you will have to stand up in open court and tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense in front of all persons in the courtroom.
3. You can go to jail, pay thousands of dollars in fines, and may be barred from future employment
3. You may not be able to get a job as a teacher, public employee, banking industry, real estate or other state regulated field.
4. On employment applications, you will have to answer yes that you were convicted of a criminal offense.
5. You must pay a $75 Safe Neighborhood Services Fund assessment for each conviction. You must pay a minimum Violent Crimes Compensation Board assessment of $50 ($100 minimum if you are convicted of a crime of violence) for each count to which you plead guilty in many states.
6. If you are being sentenced to probation, you must pay a fee of up to $25 per month for the term of probation in many states.
7 In many drug cases, the statute requires mandatory driver’s license suspension. New Jersey does not have a special license to go to work or school.
8. In indictable matters, you will be required to provide a DNA sample, which could be used by law enforcement for the investigation of criminal activity, and pay for the cost of testing in many states.
9. You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss.
10. If you are a public office holder or employee, you can be required to forfeit your office or job by virtue of your plea of guilty.
11. If you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty.


The Criminal Law Committee helps to keep solo and small firms members updated on criminal law and procedure. Programs presented by the committee are basic "how to's" on handling your first criminal law case, or answering questions from your clients when criminal law issues arise in the general practice context. We welcome all who wish to participate and accept all suggestions for programming ideas.
Brian T Hermanson Ponca City, OK Chair
(580) 762-0020
bhermanson@oklawhoma.com

Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. Deputy Chair / co- Editor
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500
(Fax) 732-572-0030
Kenv@njlaws.com
www.BeNotGuilty.com