State v. Diana Palma (071228)
219 N.J. 584
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Palma struck a pedestrian with an SUV during a left turn; victim dragged under vehicle and died two months later.
- Palma was not intoxicated; cited for careless driving and failure to yield; prosecutor declined to present charges to grand jury; summons sent to Red Bank Municipal Court.
- Municipal court: Palma pled guilty to careless driving; other charge dismissed; sentence included a 15-day custodial term (weekends) and a 90-day license suspension with fines $241; custodial sentence stayed pending appeal and later the stay on license suspension was vacated.
- Law Division: on de novo review, imposed the same custodial sentence; Appellate Division vacated and remanded, applying Moran factors and requiring evidential sources for any license suspension or custodial term.
- Supreme Court granted certification; held Moran factors apply to careless driving sentencing, reject use of Criminal Code sentencing factors, and extend Moran framework to carelessness cases with potential custodial terms; reaffirmed that motor vehicle violations are treated separately from criminal offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Moran factors govern careless driving sentencing? | Palma argues Moran factors control. | State argues Moran factors do not apply or are superseded by other rules. | Moran factors apply to careless driving sentencing. |
| May Criminal Code sentencing factors guide custodial decisions in careless driving? | Palma contends Criminal Code factors may inform sentencing. | State contends they should not guide custodial terms in careless driving. | Criminal Code factors should not be used to determine custodial term for careless driving. |
| Can death resulting from careless driving be dispositive of custodial sentence? | Palma argues victim death supports custodial consideration. | State argues death is not alone dispositive without evidentiary basis. | Death alone is not dispositive; Moran framework requires weighing enumerated factors with record evidence. |
| What information may the sentencing court consider and how must it be presented? | Courts may consider broad information; hearsay allowed under whole person concept. | Record must be grounded in evidential sources; limits on extraneous material. | Courts may consider all relevant information, including hearsay, but it must come into the record and be carefully screened to avoid extraneous material. |
| Is careless driving a petty offense distinct from criminal offenses, justifying Moran guidance over Criminal Code factors? | Palma argues Moran guidance should apply; careless driving is not a crime. | State argues Criminal Code factors may be appropriate in some circumstances. | Careless driving is a petty offense; Moran factors guide sentencing; Criminal Code factors are not appropriate guidance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moran, 202 N.J. 311 (2010) (identifies seven factors guiding sentencing for motor vehicle offenses with magnitude consequences)
- State v. Hammond, 118 N.J. 306 (1990) (motor vehicle convictions not criminal offenses; supports separation of offenses by category)
- State v. Natale, 184 N.J. 458 (2005) (courts may consider broad relevant information in sentencing, including non-evidentiary sources)
- State v. Davis, 96 N.J. 611 (1984) (evidentiary rules do not bar consideration of relevant information for sentencing)
- State v. Gattling, 95 N.J. Super. 103 (1967) (whole person concept and limits on extraneous material in sentencing)
- State v. Jefimowicz, 230 N.J. Super. 42 (1989) (recognizes variability in careless driving dispositions and need for guiding framework)
- State v. Henry, 418 N.J. Super. 481 (2010) (Law Division used Criminal Code factors in DUI context; cited in discussion of Moran framework)
- State v. Brimage, 153 N.J. 1 (1998) (uniform sentencing objectives; guidance for reducing disparity)
- State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) (six criteria guiding concurrent/consecutive sentencing; uniformity concerns)
- State v. Leonardis, 71 N.J. 85 (1976) (requirement to implement statewide guidelines and procedural review to reduce arbitrariness)