State v. O'Driscoll
215 N.J. 461
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Officer observed defendant’s SUV cross the center line and later straddle it, prompting arrest for suspicion of intoxication.
- Defendant showed slurred speech, watery eyes, and failed field sobriety tests; open bottle of alcohol found in vehicle.
- At the station, officer read the January 21, 2004 standard statement (older form) about breath testing and penalties to defendant who spoke in a language he understood.
- Penalties read differed from the 2004 form: minimum revocation six months vs seven, minimum fine $250 vs $300, maximum fine $1,000 vs $2,000.
- Defendant ambivalently answered the form questions; officer read a supplemental statement and then Miranda warnings; defendant later convicted of refusal in municipal court and on de novo review in Law Division, with related DWI and open container convictions.
- Appellate Division reversed the refusal conviction, saying the penalties’ inaccuracy violated the statutory mandate; Supreme Court granted certification to address only the refusal conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inaccurate penalties in the standard statement are material | State: deviations are de minimis and not material. | Driscoll: penalties must be accurate to inform consequences; inaccuracies are material. | Not material; conviction reinstated. |
| Whether the inform-and-impel purpose governs materiality of errors | State: statutory purpose met despite minor errors. | Driscoll: any error that fails to inform is fatal. | Inconsequential errors do not defeat conviction. |
| Whether Marquez-Duffy framework governs whether a misread constitutes reversal | State: de minimis deviations do not trigger reversal as per Marquez. | Driscoll: must strictly follow penalties to inform. | Court uses materiality-based, case-by-case analysis consistent with Marquez. |
| Whether the 2012 form issue is properly before the Court | State: 2012 form not central to this case. | Driscoll: new form could affect informational adequacy. | Court does not opine on 2012 form's sufficiency; case limited to facts here. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marquez, 202 N.J. 485 (2010) (four elements of a refusal; informs penalties; language and inform must be understood)
- State v. Schmidt, 206 N.J. 71 (2011) (standard statement must clearly delineate penalties)
- State v. Duffy, 348 N.J. Super. 609 (App. Div. 2002) (incomplete warnings; informs how to assess misreading of warnings)
- State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. 475 (1999) (urging explicitness in standard statements; related to ensuring refusal is clear)
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009) (material terms and plea-related disclosures assessed for impact on decision-making)