CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE — DRUNK DRIVING — SPEEDY TRIAL
14-2-7618 State v. Vanderkooy, App. Div. (18 pp.) Defendant challenges his convictions for driving while intoxicated, refusal to take a breathalyzer test, and speeding in the Law Division at a trial de novo based on the record developed in the municipal court.
The panel affirms, finding that:
- defendant was not denied his right to a speedy trial where both parties are responsible for various delays, whether due to scheduling conflicts, discovery delays, or requesting a Frye hearing, the amount of time elapsed is mostly due to the Frye hearing, and defendant did not prove prejudice sufficient to warrant a speedy trial violation;
- defendant was not denied the requested discovery regarding the radar gun or the State’s radar gun expert;
- the State presented sufficient evidence of the scientific reliability of the Stalker Dual SL radar device used by police;
- there was sufficient evidence in the record of the operator’s training and testing of the radar device to admit the radar reading into evidence;
- defendant cannot establish that the municipal court judge or trial judge erred in finding the police officer’s testimony credible; and
- based on the officer’s observations and defendant’s conduct, it is clear that probable cause to arrest existed and the State established beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of DWI.
Source – NJSBA Daily Briefing