STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL ARNO(5-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-5356-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- At ~2:45 a.m. Officer Cerro observed Arno driving erratically: speeding (~60 mph in a 45 zone), veering between lanes, and difficulty maintaining lane. Officer activated lights and stopped him.
- Officer detected alcohol odor on Arno and his breath; Arno had watery eyes, boisterous speech, admitted drinking, and appeared nervous.
- Arno failed the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand field sobriety tests; the stop and tests were recorded on the officer's mobile video recorder (MVR).
- Arno was arrested, transported to the station, and refused a chemical breath test. At municipal court, the State called only Officer Cerro; Arno presented two medical experts claiming physical/medical reasons for poor test performance.
- Municipal court found Arno guilty of DWI, refusal, and careless driving, crediting the officer and the MVR over Arno’s experts. The Law Division affirmed after a de novo trial. Arno appealed several procedural and sufficiency issues; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of last-minute adjournment and right to counsel | Denied request was proper; case had lengthy pendency and prior adjournments | Judge abused discretion by denying additional adjournment, violating counsel rights | Affirmed: denial within discretion (no abuse) |
| Withdrawal of counsel / ineffective assistance | Procedural issues are not properly raised on direct appeal; post-conviction is appropriate | Counsel withdrawal and lack of preparation deprived Arno of counsel of choice and effective assistance | Declined to decide ineffective assistance on direct appeal; remanded/cited PCR process |
| Combining suppression hearing evidence into trial record | No improper combination here because defense stipulated by not timely asserting suppression and had full cross-examination | Municipal court improperly incorporated suppression hearing evidence without consent, requiring new trial (relying on Gibson/Allan) | Held no error: here trial proceeded, State presented witness in open trial, defense fully cross-examined, and suppression motion was belatedly raised — different facts than Gibson/Allan |
| Sufficiency of evidence for DWI, refusal, and careless driving | Officer observations, MVR, admission of drinking, failed SFSTs = sufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt; probable cause for arrest supports refusal conviction | Medical issues could explain SFST failures and undercut probable cause and refusal element | Affirmed: ample credible evidence supports convictions; probable cause existed; refusal conviction stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522 (discretion to deny adjournment)
- State v. Gibson, 219 N.J. 227 (suppression hearing evidence should not be incorporated into trial without consent and opportunity for full cross-examination)
- State v. Allan, 283 N.J. Super. 622 (remand where suppression testimony was incorporated and cross-examination was restricted)
- State v. Bealor, 187 N.J. 574 (symptoms, odor, admission, and SFST failures can sustain DWI conviction)
- State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (elements for upholding refusal conviction)
- State v. Liberatore, 293 N.J. Super. 580 (DWI conviction may be based on physical evidence and SFST performance)
- State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (appellate standard: uphold findings if sufficient credible evidence exists)