State v. Misurella
25 A.3d 270
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- 2:46 a.m. on Sept. 23, 2007, police respond to Garden State Parkway crash in East Orange; three damaged vehicles observed.
- Defendant was at the scene, agitated, verbally abusive, distracted, and uncooperative during questioning; odor of alcohol detected.
- Breathalyzer test after 5:00 a.m. yielded a blood alcohol content of .10, above the legal limit.
- Municipal court trial was adjourned 11 times from Oct. 10, 2007, to July 15, 2008.
- Defendant were convicted in municipal court and filed a notice of appeal for trial de novo in the Superior Court, Law Division; appeal filed July 30, 2008.
- Superior Court trial de novo occurred Oct. 22, 2010, after delays including dismissal for transcripts and issues with the dashboard videotape exhibit, resulting in a 798-day span from filing to disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delay in disposition of the de novo appeal violated due process. | State argues no due process violation under Barker factors. | Misurella contends 27-month delay violates speedy disposition rights on appeal. | No due process violation; Barker balance favors State. |
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest and detain defendant and suppress evidence. | State contends probable cause supported arrest. | Misurella argues lack of probable cause and prejudicial evidence. | Probable cause supported arrest; suppression not warranted on appeal. |
| Whether spoliation of evidence by the State justified dismissal of the complaint. | State asserts issue not prejudicial; no dismissal warranted. | Misurella claims spoliation undermines fairness. | Spoliation claim rejected; dismissal not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (speedy-trial balancing factors: length, reason, assertion, prejudice)
- Szima, 70 N.J. 196 (1976) (framework for evaluating undue delay on appeal)
- Le Furge, 222 N.J. Super. 92 (App. Div. 1988) (application of Barker factors to appellate delay; prejudice inquiry)
- United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (1986) (hardship of delay alone not sufficient prejudice)
- Simmons v. Beyer, 44 F.3d 1160 (3d Cir. 1995) (unreasonable appellate delay violates due process)