STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTHONY AURIEMMA (15-01-0140, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1399-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Anthony Auriemma was tried by jury and convicted of fourth-degree knowingly operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for a second or subsequent DWI; sentenced to 210 days county jail with 180 days parole ineligibility.
- Accident occurred Jan. 15, 2015: officer found defendant digging his vehicle out of a ditch; heavy fog and visibility issues; officer recognized defendant, who said he lost control negotiating a curve and denied drinking.
- Officer observed signs of intoxication, administered field sobriety tests (defendant failed), and later observed a .17 BAC at the station. Photographs of the scene and vehicle interior (documents and a bottle on passenger seat) were admitted.
- State introduced defendant’s driving record showing multiple prior DUI convictions (2004, 2006, 2011) including a 10-year suspension after 2011 conviction. Defendant did not testify.
- Defense presented three witnesses who said another man (Christopher Foglio) drove defendant’s car into Seaside Heights that night; Christopher later attempted to claim he was the driver but gave inconsistent explanations and had reasons to avoid identification (warrant, suspended license).
- Trial court denied motions on several evidentiary issues; defendant appealed claiming unfair prejudice from officer recognition testimony, improper prosecutor summation, verdict against the weight of the evidence, and erroneous pretrial ruling permitting impeachment by a 2005 conviction more than ten years old.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Auriemma) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Officer identification testimony invoking N.J.R.E. 404(b) | Recognition testimony was necessary to explain lack of ID request and was innocuous | Testimony implied prior criminal conduct, unfairly prejudicing jury | Admission proper; no 404(b) implication and no unfair prejudice |
| 2. Prosecutor's closing comments | Comments merely highlighted testimony and challenged defense claim (passenger vs driver) | Summation misstated evidence (e.g., passenger seat described as "trash all over") and reiterated ID testimony, warranting reversal | Plain-error review: comments not reversible; harmless and insufficiently prejudicial |
| 3. Verdict against weight of evidence / new trial motion | Evidence (officer observations, BAC, scene photos, prior record) supported jury verdict | Defense evidence placed another driver at wheel; verdict was against weight of evidence | Denial of new trial affirmed; credibility determinations for jury and trial court were reasonable |
| 4. Pretrial ruling to allow use of 2005 eluding conviction for impeachment ( >10 years) | The 2005 conviction was only months beyond 10-year guideline, serious, and probative of credibility | Conviction was too remote; should be excluded under N.J.R.E. 609(b) | Trial court acted within discretion under Sands and N.J.R.E. 609(b); admissibility affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 209 N.J. 431 (guidance on admissibility of prior convictions and evidentiary discretion)
- State v. Gillispie, 208 N.J. 59 (principles limiting other-crimes evidence and rule of exclusion)
- State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127 (framework for weighing remoteness and probative value of prior convictions)
- State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123 (prosecutor’s duty and standards for closing argument)
- State v. Papasavvas, 163 N.J. 565 (reversal standard for improper prosecutorial comments affecting fair jury evaluation)
- State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (standard governing review of weight-of-the-evidence and trial court deference)