DWI Appeal – State’s Burden of Proof
Submitted by New Jersey DWI Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In this DWI Appeal the court is asked again to determine whether the state has met its evidential burden at of proof and whether the trial court had erred when it made its finds of facts and conclusions of law on the record. At issue is the testimony of numerous witnesses regarding who was driving a car involved in an accident with several parked cars. The police officers did not witness the accident nor any driving of the defendant. When they actually arrived there was absolutely no direct observation of the defendant driving and there was no clear evidence given the numerous inconsistent witness statements as to whether the defendant or his wife was operating the vehicle that struck several parked cars.
DWI and Sufficient Credible Evidence
The appellate court gave due regard to the municipal court judge’s findings of credibility as per State vs. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) and State vs. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (1999) and determined whether the law division had before it ‘sufficient credible facts on the record’ to support their finding. The appellate court reiterated: “When we are satisfied that the findings and conclusions of the Law Division are supported by sufficient credible evidence, their job is complete and the trial court’s conclusions should not be disturbed even if the appellate court would have reached a different conclusion.