State of New Jersey v. Scott Robertson
102 A.3d 381
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Defendant Scott Robertson was stopped for lane encroachment, exhibited signs of intoxication, performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and produced an Alcotest breath result of .13 BAC.
- After municipal court motions, defendant proceeded to a trial de novo in Law Division on stipulated facts; both courts found him guilty (per se and observational).
- Defendant sought discovery of (a) Dräger repair/service records for Alcotest serial ARXA-0037 and (b) electronic "data download" files (calibration, control, linearity) that had been routinely erased from the device.
- The State produced paper calibration and foundational Chun documents but did not produce erased electronic files; the State explained erasure resulted from a firmware bug and that erased data were irrelevant.
- Trial court and Appellate panel rejected defendant's request to exclude Alcotest results or dismiss based on the missing data; conviction affirmed.
- Appellate court vacated the stay of license suspension entered without findings and instructed that stays pending appeal require Crowe findings and may be conditioned (e.g., restricted driving, ignition interlock).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State's failure to produce Dräger repair records/data required exclusion of Alcotest results | State: produced required Chun foundational paper records; erased electronic files were not in prosecutor's control and were irrelevant | Robertson: needed repair records and electronic downloads to test device operability and challenge Alcotest reliability | No exclusion; State not obliged to produce records beyond its possession; defendant should subpoena Dräger; no Brady violation shown |
| Whether erased electronic calibration/control/linearity files violated Brady or discovery rules | State: files erased in good faith due to firmware bug; printed records contain all pertinent data | Robertson: erased files potentially exculpatory and material to operability; their absence prejudiced defense | No Brady violation; no bad faith; defendant failed to show materiality or reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Whether defendant was entitled to a jury trial for DWI and related charges | State: DWI prosecutions are quasi-criminal; no jury right for standard DWI exposure | Robertson: increased statutory penalties and combined potential penalties justify jury trial | No jury right; Hamm/Blanton framework controls; remedy is sentence limitations if trial without jury exposes defendant to >6 months aggregate incarceration |
| Whether courts properly stayed license suspension pending appeal without findings | State: did not oppose municipal stay; opposed later stay in Law Division | Robertson: requested stay pending resolution of unsettled appellate issues | Stays granted without findings were improper; stay vacated; future stays must apply Crowe factors, include findings, and may be conditioned (e.g., limited driving, interlock) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008) (establishes Alcotest foundational document disclosure and general scientific reliability)
- State v. Chun, 215 N.J. 489 (2013) (Chun II) (Court held State database complies with Chun despite some erased files)
- State v. Maricic, 417 N.J. Super. 280 (App. Div. 2010) (discusses scope of additional Alcotest-related discovery and downloaded data)
- State v. Ford, 240 N.J. Super. 44 (App. Div. 1990) (repair/maintenance records of breath devices can be relevant and discoverable)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982) (three-part standard for stays pending appeal)
- Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989) (right to jury trial depends on authorized penalty; petty offenses do not require jury)