State v. Stas
212 N.J. 37
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Stas appeals his conviction for allowing an intoxicated driver to operate a vehicle in his custody and control, after Putz admitted driving the car; the police did not test or arrest Stas, and he remained silent at the scene.
- Putz admitted driving; Stas did not challenge the vehicle ownership or driver's identity, and the police issued a citation to Stas under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a).
- Municipal court convicted Stas of the “allowing” offense and Putz of DWI; Law Division conducted de novo review, relying on Stas’s silence; Appellate Division affirmed.
- Appellate Division held Putz’s statement against interest admissible and that silence was harmless error; Stas contends his silence violated Fifth Amendment and state privileges.
- Court reverses, holds use of Stas’s silence violated self-incrimination protections, and remands for a new trial.
- Opinion concludes that the silence was a plain error under R. 2:10-2 and that a new trial is required under Rule 3:23-8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Law Division improperly used Stas’s silence as substantive evidence. | Stas | Stas | Yes; reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. (1976)) (pre-arrest silence may be used for impeachment)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (U.S. (1984)) (Miranda warnings trigger full protections in custodial settings)
- State v. Deatore, 70 N.J. 100 (N.J. (1976)) (pre-arrest silence near time of arrest cannot be used to impeach)
- State v. Lyle, 73 N.J. 403 (N.J. (1977)) (pre-arrest silence may impeach credibility, not prove guilt)
- State v. Muhammad, 182 N.J. 551 (N.J. (2005)) (prohibition on substantive use of silence near time of arrest)
- State v. James Brown, 118 N.J. 595 (N.J. (1990)) (pre-arrest silence may have probative value for credibility in certain contexts)
- State v. Lawrence Brown, 190 N.J. 144 (N.J. (2007)) (pre-arrest silence may impeach credibility with limiting instruction)
- State v. Elkwisni, 190 N.J. 169 (N.J. (2007)) (pre-arrest silence with limited impeachment value in some settings)
- State v. Hessen, 145 N.J. 441 (N.J. (1996)) (legislature’s goals to curb intoxicated driving)
- State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84 (N.J. (2005)) (due process in quasi-criminal proceedings)
- State v. Garthe, 145 N.J. 1 (N.J. (1996)) (due process in quasi-criminal contexts)
- State v. Dively, 92 N.J. 573 (N.J. (1983)) (Double Jeopardy protections for quasi-criminal settings)
- Muhammad, 182 N.J. 551 (N.J. (2005)) (self-incrimination protections in pre-arrest context)