STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY SCUDIERI (20-004, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0352-20

Background

On August 30, 2019 Anthony Scudieri was arrested for motor-vehicle offenses and refusal to submit to chemical testing; he pled guilty to refusal and other charges were dismissed.
At the time of the offense the refusal statute prescribed a mandatory seven-month license forfeiture for a first refusal (prior law).
On August 23, 2019 the Legislature enacted L.2019, c.248, amending N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a to replace the seven‑month automatic suspension with license forfeiture only until an ignition‑interlock device is installed; the statute expressly took effect December 1, 2019 and applied only to offenses occurring on or after that date.
Municipal court sentenced Scudieri on January 22, 2020 under the pre‑amendment law (seven‑month suspension); the Law Division (trial de novo) affirmed on August 25, 2020 and stayed its order pending appeal.
Scudieri appealed, arguing the amended refusal statute should apply because his conviction/sentencing occurred after the amendment’s effective date (seeking pipeline/retroactive application); the Appellate Division rejected that argument and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2019 amendment to N.J.S.A. 39:4‑50.4a applies retroactively (pipeline) to conduct that occurred before Dec. 1, 2019 but where conviction/sentencing occurred after	State: The Legislature set the statute's effective date and scope; prospective application governs.	Scudieri: The amended law is curative/ameliorative and/or should apply because conviction/sentencing occurred after its effective date.	Held: No; the statute's express effective date and express statement limiting application to offenses on or after Dec. 1, 2019 show clear legislative intent for prospective application.
Whether the amendment is curative or ameliorative such that common‑law exceptions require retroactive application	State: The Legislature’s language controls; express prospectivity moots exceptions.	Scudieri: The amendment mitigates penalties and expands interlock relief, so it should apply retroactively.	Held: The amendment is neither curative nor an ameliorative change that warrants retroactivity; it reflects a policy choice favoring interlocks, not correction of ambiguity or mitigation of an undue legislative severity.
Whether the statutory term “offense” is ambiguous and should be read to mean date of conviction rather than date of violation	State: “Offense” reasonably refers to the date the prohibited conduct occurred (violation).	Scudieri: ‘‘Offense’’ means criminal offense/conviction date; refusal is a motor‑vehicle violation, not a crime, so effective date should hinge on conviction date.	Held: No ambiguity; ‘‘offense’’ reasonably denotes the date of the unlawful act (refusal on Aug. 30, 2019), so the amendment does not apply.
Whether equitable application of the amended (lesser) penalty is required under State v. Smith to avoid an unjust result	State: Smith is distinguishable where Legislature clearly declared prospective effect.	Scudieri: Even if statute is prospective, Smith permits applying lesser penalties to avoid injustice.	Held: Smith is inapposite; where the Legislature clearly limited application prospectively, applying penalties in effect at time of offense is not unjust.

Key Cases Cited

State v. J.V., 242 N.J. 432 (2020) (future effective date signals legislatively intended prospective application; obviates Gibbons/James exceptions)
Pisack v. B & C Towing, Inc., 240 N.J. 360 (2020) (immediate or future effective dates inform retroactivity analysis; immediate effective date disfavors retroactivity)
Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515 (1981) (three circumstances permitting retroactive application: express intent, curative amendments, or party expectations)
Twiss v. State, Dep’t of Treasury, 124 N.J. 461 (1991) (courts favor prospective application; use textual and purposive analysis)
State v. Smith, 58 N.J. 202 (1971) (in limited circumstances courts may apply lesser penalties post‑amendment to avoid injustice)
State v. Denelsbeck, 225 N.J. 103 (2016) (DWI characterized as a motor‑vehicle offense rather than a crime for certain constitutional analyses)
State in Interest of C.F., 444 N.J. Super. 179 (App. Div. 2016) (savings clause and temporal inquiry when new penal statutes enact future effective dates)