State v. Kovacs

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

State v. Kovacs

241 A.2d 843, 100 N.J. Super. 310, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 357

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedMay 25, 1967

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.2d 843 (State v. Kovacs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Kovacs, 241 A.2d 843, 100 N.J. Super. 310, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 357 (N.J. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The County Court found defendant guilty of drunken driving after a trial de novo on appeal from the municipal court. We conclude, on the basis of (1) what defendant said to the police officer on his arrival to investigate the rear-end collision; (2) the police officers’ and drunkometer operator’s direct observation of defendant’s physical condition and odor of alcohol, and (3) the drunkometer test result (.18 reading), that the State proved defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not consider the answers defendant gave when questioned by the [312]*312drunkometer operator, although we disagree with :the trial judge’s ruling . excluding such answers.

Determination of whether defendant voluntarily consented — see N. J. S. A. 39 :4-50.1 as it read on July 16, 1966, now amended by L. 1966, c. 142 (see N. J. S. A. 39 :4-50.2 (e)) — to take the drunkometer test was for the trial j'udge. In light of the record, we will not disturb his factual finding that defendant so..consented. Accordingly, we find no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U. S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966); State v. King, 44 N. J. 346 (1965).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The County Court found defendant guilty of drunken driving after a trial de novo on appeal from the municipal court. We conclude, on the basis of (1) what defendant said to the police officer on his arrival to investigate the rear-end collision; (2) the police officers’ and drunkometer operator’s direct observation of defendant’s physical condition and odor of alcohol, and (3) the drunkometer test result (.18 reading), that the State proved defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not consider the answers defendant gave when questioned by the [312]*312drunkometer operator, although we disagree with :the trial judge’s ruling . excluding such answers.

Determination of whether defendant voluntarily consented — see N. J. S. A. 39 :4-50.1 as it read on July 16, 1966, now amended by L. 1966, c. 142 (see N. J. S. A. 39 :4-50.2 (e)) — to take the drunkometer test was for the trial j'udge. In light of the record, we will not disturb his factual finding that defendant so..consented. Accordingly, we find no violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. Schmerber v. State of California, 384 U. S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966); State v. King, 44 N. J. 346 (1965).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.2d 843, 100 N.J. Super. 310, 1967 N.J. Super. LEXIS 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kovacs-njsuperctappdiv-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack