NJ Case Law - State v. Federico

Nature of Case
Appeal from a trial de novo finding Defendant DWI, refusal to take a breathalyzer and driving while suspended.

Facts
Defendant Federico was found unconscious in his car with the engine running at 1:53 a.m. on November 3, 2006. Once awake, he told Officer Joshua Eckert that he had two or three drinks at a party in Sparta. Officer Eckert testified that Federico’s speech was extremely slurred and that he smelled of alcohol. After performing the sobriety tests, Eckert concluded that Federico was obviously drunk and impaired. When at the police station, Officer Resa also noticed that Federico’s breath smelled of alcohol and that his speech was slurred. Federico stated that he took prescription medicine and did not drink, but then refused to provide the officers with a breath sample. He then began “dry heaving” and “spitting into a garbage can.” He then inquired if Resa “kn[e]w what [he] did for [Clifton].”

Procedural History
At his trial, Defendant and other workers testified that he had been working on the night of November 2, 2006, at his inadequately ventilated office and was exposed to toxic chemicals causing neurotoxicity. Defendant presented two doctors as witnesses. One doctor explained the impact that the chemicals in defendant's office had and how it resulted in neurotoxicity for hours after his exposure. However, he did not know defendant's actual exposure to substances on the night in question. The other doctor attributed defendant's condition to the use of the medication Paxil, which was prescribed for anxiety.

The municipal court judge convicted defendant on all counts. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in jail, a 10 year license suspension, and a $1,000 fine because he was a third time DWI offender. In addition, he received a concurrent ten year loss of license. And for driving while on a suspended license, he received another $1000 fine, a consecutive two year suspension of his driver's license, and a consecutive 45 day jail sentence. His total time served was to be 225 days. In regards to the refusal offense, the trial judge also found that Federico’s question to Resa about what he did for Clifton were an “attempt to gain favor with the police officers” and his insistence that his condition was not caused by drinking reveals he understood his circumstances.

Defendant appealed but the decision of the municipal court judge was affirmed by a law division judge and the same penalties were imposed. Defendant now appeals.

Issue(s)
Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt based solely on sobriety test and observations of the arresting officers where defendant was found unconscious with his engine running at 1:00 a.m., his speech was slurred, and he admitted to having two or three drinks at a party?

Whether work-induced chemical intoxication is a defense to DWI?

Whether so being intoxicated that one cannot understand the implied consent form a defense against the refusal to submit a breathalyzer charge?

Whether a punishment that resulted from a bench trial on consolidated charges could result in a conviction over 180 days?

Holding
Affirmed and remanded.

Rationale
The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of a DWI because the testimony of the arresting officers – that Federico’s speech was slurred and that he was obviously impaired – was accepted by the trial judge as credible.

Chemical intoxication that results from working conditions is not a defense, just as involuntary intoxication is not a defense, to a DWI charge. Even if it were a defense, there was enough evidence to uphold the conviction based on the above observations of the officers.

Defendant’s assertion that he could not understand what the officers were saying to him fails as well because the municipal court judge found that Federico’s question to Resa about what he did for Clifton were an “attempt to gain favor with the police officers” and his insistence that his condition was not caused by drinking reveals he understood his circumstances.

In regards to the limit of imprisonment in bench trials for petty crimes, the court held that the punishment over 180 days is excessive according under New Jersey precedent even though it is not constitutionally excessive. The court reasoned that the U.S. Supreme Court would allow such a sentence under Lewis v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 328 (1996). But under State v. Owens, 54 N.J. 153, 162-63 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1021 (1970), such bench trial “sentences may not total more than the maximum authorized for a petty offense if a jury trial is not offered.”

Notes
In footnote five, the court stated explained that even though the defendant did not raise the excessiveness of his sentence on appeal, he did mention it in his response brief. The court decided to take on that issue in its opinion because of its importance and because this issue may be raised in a petition for post conviction relief.



Contact Us today for your free NJ DWI / DUI consultation.