State of New Jersey v. Robert Luzhak
137 A.3d 555
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- In October 2013 Luzhak was issued a summons for driving with a suspended license after a minor parking-lot collision; at the time he had prior DWI convictions in New Jersey (April 2010) and Maryland (March 2013).
- Middlesex County indicted Luzhak under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) for operating a vehicle during a second license suspension tied to DWI convictions (fourth-degree offense).
- Luzhak moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the Maryland conviction did not qualify as a predicate DWI under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b); the motion was denied.
- He also moved to preclude admission of his New Jersey motor-vehicle abstract (which recorded the Maryland suspension); that motion was denied as well.
- Luzhak pleaded guilty, admitting the Maryland-equivalent DWI, and was sentenced to 180 days (no parole) on the indictable charge; he appealed and the sentence stay was in place pending appeal.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding an out-of-state DWI conviction can qualify as a predicate offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) and that the motor-vehicle abstract was admissible.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Luzhak's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) requires prior DWI convictions to be from New Jersey only | Statute should be read to include out-of-state DWI equivalents consistent with DLC and related statutes | The statute requires prior convictions under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 (NJ DWI) and thus Maryland conviction does not qualify | Out-of-state DWI conviction (Maryland) qualifies as predicate under 2C:40-26(b) when equivalent, consistent with DLC and N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) |
| Admissibility of New Jersey motor-vehicle abstract showing the out-of-state suspension | Abstract is a business record and non-testimonial; admissible under hearsay exceptions and not barred by Confrontation Clause | Abstract contains hearsay from Maryland and should be barred without Maryland witness | Abstract admissible as non-testimonial and under business-record hearsay exceptions; Confrontation Clause not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. N.J. Trade Waste Ass'n, 96 N.J. 8 (court should not dismiss indictment except on clearest ground)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (statutory interpretation: ordinary meaning and context)
- State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566 (when to consider extrinsic legislative history for ambiguous statutes)
- State v. Regan, 209 N.J. Super. 596 (out-of-state DWI can count as prior for enhanced penalties)
- State v. Cromwell, 194 N.J. Super. 519 (Driver License Compact requires giving effect to out-of-state conduct for penalties)
- State v. Colley, 397 N.J. Super. 214 (applied Regan/Cromwell to hold out-of-state DWI triggers enhanced penalties)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause framework for testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (laboratory certificates as testimonial evidence)
- State v. Zalta, 217 N.J. Super. 209 (driving records admissible as business records)
- State v. Pitcher, 379 N.J. Super. 308 (DMV records deemed reliable prima facie evidence)