STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARLOS B. GREEN(15-10-2268, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1809-16T1

On December 27, 2014, defendant Carlos B. Green struck and killed Billy Ray Dudley, who was lying in an intersection; defendant's BAC was 0.210%.
State charged defendant with first‑degree vehicular homicide while intoxicated within 1000 feet of a school; to convict the State must prove recklessness.
Statute creates an inference that driving while intoxicated (DWI) constitutes recklessness; driving with BAC ≥ 0.08% is per se DWI.
Defendant had two prior DWI convictions (1998 and 2009); State sought to admit them under N.J.R.E. 404(b) to prove knowledge of risks and rebut accident/mistake.
Trial court excluded the prior DWI convictions after applying the Cofield four‑part test, finding the extreme prejudicial effect outweighed probative value given the statutory inference of recklessness.
State appealed interlocutorily; Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to trial court discretion and emphasizing the unique prejudice of prior‑DWI evidence where statutory inference already supplies recklessness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior DWI convictions under N.J.R.E. 404(b) (Cofield prong 4)	Prior DWI convictions are highly probative of defendant's knowledge of DWI risks and absence of mistake; should be admitted.	Prior DWI convictions are unduly prejudicial and invite impermissible propensity inference, particularly given statutory inference of recklessness from DWI.	Court affirmed exclusion: prejudice outweighed probative value given statutory inference and risk of jury conviction based on propensity.

State v. Jamerson, 153 N.J. 318 (1998) (DWI may alone satisfy recklessness for death‑by‑auto statute)
State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553 (2004) (heightened caution and balancing for other‑crime evidence)
State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289 (1989) (other‑crime evidence tends to turn a jury against defendant)
State v. G.S., 145 N.J. 460 (1996) (risk that prior‑act evidence distracts jury from direct evidence of guilt)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (four‑part test limiting extrinsic other‑crime evidence)
State v. Williams, 190 N.J. 114 (2007) (articulation of Cofield framework)
State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) (trial court must engage in careful pragmatic evaluation under Cofield)
State v. Barden, 195 N.J. 375 (2008) (probative value must not be outweighed by prejudice; guidance on less prejudicial alternatives)
State v. Darby, 174 N.J. 509 (2002) (N.J.R.E. 404(b) is primarily a rule of exclusion)