Kruttschnitt v. Hagaman

• Decision Date: 23 March 1942
• Docket Number: No. 210.,210.
• Citation: 128 N.J.L. 246,25 A.2d 200
• Parties: KRUTTSCHNITT v. HAGAMAN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

25 A.2d 200

128 N.J.L. 246

KRUTTSCHNITT

v. HAGAMAN.

No. 210.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 23, 1942.

Certiorari by Walter Kruttschnitt against Vernon D. Hagaman, recorder of the Township of Franklin, Somerset County, N. J., to review a conviction for drunken driving.

Conviction reversed.

January term, 1942, before BODINE, PERSKIE, and PORTER.

Strong & Strong, of New Brunswick (John V. R. Strong, of New Brunswick, of counsel), for prosecutor.

John Macko, of Somerville (Edward Sachar, of Plainfield, of counsel), for respondent.

PERSKIE, Justice.

This is a drunken driving case. Prosecutor challenges the propriety of the judgment of conviction entered against him, in the Recorder's Court of the Township of Franklin, Somerset County, upon a complaint which charged that, on June 23, 1941, at about 9:40 p. m., he operated a motor vehicle, on a public highway (between Middlebush and East Millstone on the Amwell Road), in said township and county, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, in violation of N.J.S.A. 39: 4-50. The Recorder imposed a penalty of $200 and $5 costs on prosecutor and, in default of the payment thereof, ordered that prosecutor be committed to the Somerset County jail for a period of sixty days.

Not having the $205 with him and not having been given much, if any, opportunity to get it, prosecutor was, within two hours and twenty minutes after his arrest, that is just before midnight following his arrest, committed to the county jail.

In support of his challenge, prosecutor contends (1) that the record submitted is insufficient; (2) that he was the victim of entrapment; (3) that he was denied the right of counsel; and (4) that he was tried and convicted while not in a, condition to comprehend or intelligently to prepare a defense (not by reason of his alleged intoxication but rather by reason of the strain of the circumstances upon his, poor health), and that he was not given a fair trial.

We pass over the contentions we have numbered as 1 and 2, for we chose to base our determination of this cause upon contentions 3 and 4 which we conceive to be embraced within the requirements of due process of law. Thus the questions here, as we see it, are whether the basic requirements of due process were satisfied. Was prosecutor given timely and reasonable opportunity to be heard and to defend himself? State v. Zied, 116 N.J.L. 234, 183 A. 210. Was he given a fair trial? Cf. Johnson v. City of Wildwood, 116 N.J. L. 462, 464, 184 A. 616. Our answers to these questions are in the negative. In support of these answers, let us refer to the facts.

Prosecutor is a citizen, taxpayer and former official of the Township of Franklin. His sharp criticisms of the present officials of the township engendered ill feeling between them. Having occasion to call at the town hall of the township, he arranged with his counsel to meet him there at 9:30 p. m., on June 23, 1941. Prosecutor reached the Recorder's Court room in the township hall about 9:20 p. m. His counsel had not then arrived. As soon as prosecutor entered the court room, in which were present the Recorder and some police officers, a rather foul and insulting verbal altercation followed between the police officials and prosecutor. Because of this altercation, and because of the claim that prosecutor was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, he was escorted by the police officers to his automobile and seated therein, during which time prosecutor claims he was struck by the officers, and was profanely told to get away. He was not arrested for his conduct or his alleged condition while in the court room because the police officers concededly did not think it the politically expedient thing to do. A woman newspaper reporter who chanced to come into the court room at the aforestated time testified, however, that she heard the Recorder say, "Oh, let him go, we will pick him up for drunken driving."

Prosecutor, after some difficulty in getting the car away from its parked location, drove for about 1 1/2miles on Amwell Road when he was stopped and arrested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The officers who followed and arrested him were the same officers who had the altercation with him at the town hall. The Recorder joined the officers at the scene of the arrest.

Prosecutor was brought to the court room at the town hall. His driver's license was taken from him. He demanded the right to communicate with his counsel which according to him (and denied for respondent) was denied him. He was then taken before a Dr. Lovejoy in South Bound Brook (about 61/2 or 7 miles from the town hall) for examination. The doctor found him to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor and unfit to drive. The doctor made a written statement to that effect. Within about 15 minutes after the stated finding by the doctor, prosecutor was brought back to the court room in town hall. He again says (and it is again denied) that he demanded the right to counsel. Shortly prior thereto prosecutor's counsel arrived...