State v. ConnersState v. Conners
Defendant was found guilty in the Municipal Court of Manalapan Township of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of
Defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because (1) the County Court erred in that its finding of intoxication was based on a chart contained in the New Jersey State Police Drinking Driving Enforcement Guide, which was not in evidence; (2) the State did not prove that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of
I
It is fundamental that the findings of fact of a trial court must be bаsed on evidence present in the record, Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Sussex Fire Ins. Co., 90 F.2d 281, 283 (3 Cir. 1937), cert. den. 302 U.S. 742, 58 S.Ct. 144, 82 L.Ed. 573 (1937); Dudley Co. v. Aron, 106 N.J.L. 100, 103-104 (E. & A. 1929), or on matters judicially noticed in proper fashion.
Defendant‘s argument that the finding of guilt of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of
III
Defendant‘s argument that his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated by the conduct of the Manalapan Township police in insisting on obtaining fingerprints and mug shots of him, contrary to
* * * [L]aw enforcement agencies and offiсers, shall immediately upon the arrest of any person for an indictable offense, or of any person believed to be wanted for an indictable offense, or believed to be an habitual criminal, * * * takе the fingerprints of such person according to the fingerprint system of identification established by the Superintendent of State Police and on the forms prescribed, and forward without delay two copies or mоre of the same, together with photographs and such other descriptions as may be required and with a history of the offense committed, to the State Bureau of Identification.
A proceeding for a violation of
Here, no claim of physical force or violence of the kind condemned by the Supreme Court in Rochin is made by defеndant. His claim of conduct which “shocks the conscience” is without merit. Defendant arrived at police headquarters at some time between 5:40 P.M., when he was released from the hospital, and 5:50 P.M., when he was rеad the Breathalyzer refusal form and he refused to submit to the test. Some time after 6:08 P.M., when defendant‘s wife arrived at headquarters and was denied the opportunity to post bail for defendant, defendant acquiеsced to submit to the testing, the first test being taken at 7:06 P.M., and the second at 7:22 P.M. While it is clear that the police officers improperly coerced defendant into submitting to the tests, the lack of physical force or violence and the relatively short
Furthermore, since the results of the Breathalyzer tests were not received in evidence by the County Court below and did not form the basis for defendant‘s conviction, defendant could not have been prejudicеd by the conduct of the Manalapan police in any event.
IV
Defendant finally contends that the County Court erred in vacating its order of September 4, 1973, adjudging him guilty of impaired driving, in violation of
Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight and omission may at any time be corrected by the court on its own initiative оr on the motion of any party, on such notice and terms as the court directs, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal.
In 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 243 at 456 (1947), it is stated:
A judgment may properly be amended so as to make it conform to the verdict, findings, or decision where by mistake or inadvertence it has been entered in terms differing therefrom. * * *
It is well established that a court has the power to control its own judgments. Welser v. Welser, 54 N.J. Super. 555, 563-564 (App. Div. 1959); Locher v. Locher, 111 N.J. Eq. 123, 125 (Ch. 1932). It has been held that a court has the powеr to amend a record which misstates the real verdict, Hansen v. DeVita, 76 N.J.L. 330, 332 (Sup. Ct. 1908);
I have no doubt that this court has the power at any time to amend its judgment, if it is erroneous by reason of the mis-entry of the clerk, or by reason of any other mistake; or that such judgment may be set aside and treated as a nullity, if it has been procured by fraud, оr is the result of misapprehension. [at 554]
Defendant‘s reliance on State v. Laird, 25 N.J. 298 (1957), is misplaced. In Laird our Supreme Court held that while at common law the record of the court in criminal cases was subject to amendment at any time during the term, including revision of the sentencе, a new and different sentence increasing the punishment after the execution of the defendant‘s sentence had begun could not be imposed by the court. Here, the facts establish beyond question that the Cоunty Court judge had not yet rendered his decision at the time he inadvertently signed the final judgment prepared and sent to him by the prosecutor‘s office. All counsel were aware that the decision of the County Court wаs still pending. The County Court judge did not knowingly sign the order of September 4, 1973 and clearly had no intention to do so. In fact, the judge in his reported opinion specifically stated, “Defendant is to present himself to the Court fоr imposition of sentence forthwith.” 125 N.J. Super. at 513. Obviously this error on the part of the County Court judge in signing the final judgment should have been corrected, as it was, and we hold that the court below had the power to do so. See State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491, 501-502 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 1009, 88 S.Ct. 572, 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967).
Thе State contends that the County Court erred in holding that the inspection certificates of the Breathalyzer instrument were inadmissible without testimony and cross-examination of the State Police coordinator whо tested the machine. We agree that the trial court erred in that regard and to that extent overrule that portion of the holding of the County Court below. State v. McGeary, 129 N.J. Super. 219 (App. Div. 1974). However, we affirm the trial court‘s ruling that the inspection certificates were inadmissible in evidence on the ground that the record reveals that the State failed to authenticate the inspection certificates in any manner, as provided by
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction below is affirmed.