State v. Carus
| Decision Date | 21 January 1972 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Michael CARUS, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey County Court |
Vincent Sharkey, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff (George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty., Gen., attorney).
David Solomon, Jersey City, for defendant (Jacob Friedland, Jersey City, attorney).
GELMAN, J.J. & D.R. Ct. (temporarily assigned).
Defendant appeals pursuant to R. 3:23 from his conviction in the Municipal Court of Rochelle Park for violation of N.J.S.A 39:4--49.1. Prior to commencement of trial in this court defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and the facts have been stipulated for the purpose of this motion.
On August 8, 1971 defendant was operating a motor vehicle on Route 17 in Rochelle Park. The vehicle was stopped by a police officer and, upon a search of its contents, a quantity of marihuana was found in a sneaker lying under the front seat. A summons for violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4--49.1 was issued and, following a nontranscribed hearing in the municipal court, defendant was convicted.
N.J.S.A. 39:4--49.1 was enacted in 1964 and provides as follows:
No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any highway while knowingly having in his possession or in the motor vehicle any narcotic drug within the meaning of section 24:18--2 of the Revised Statutes or any amphetamine, barbiturate, barbital, hypnotic or somnifacient drugs, tranquilizers or any prescription legend drug, unless obtained from, or on a valid written prescription of, a duly licensed physician, veterinarian or dentist.
A person who violates this section shall be fined not less than $50.00 and shall forthwith forfeit his right to operate a motor vehicle for a period of 2 years from the date of his conviction.
At the time the above statute was enacted, the Uniform Narcotic Drug Law (former N.J.S.A. 24:18--1 et seq.) was in effect in New Jersey, and section 2 (former N.J.S.A. 24:18--2) defined narcotic drugs as including 'coca leaves, opium, marihuana and every substance not chemically distinguishable from them.' In 1970 the Uniform Narcotic Drug Law was repealed and in its place the Legislature substituted the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act (N.J.S.A. 24:21--1 et seq.; L.1970, c. 226). Under the Controlled Dangerous Substances Act marihuana has been excluded from the definition of a narcotic drug. See N.J.S.A. 24:21--2. However, the act contains no reference to N.J.S.A. 39:4--49.1, and the question is whether the new definition of narcotic drug as contained in the act is to be read into the cited section of the Motor Vehicle Act, it being apparent that marihuana does not fall within any other of the categories of proscribed drugs mentioned in the latter.
The Controlled Dangerous Substances Act was the final expression of a wideranging reform in the narcotic drug laws of this State. Its adoption was preceded by a legislative investigation extending over a period of many years, which included numerous reports filed by the Narcotic Drug Study Commission and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mitchell
...714 (E.D.Va.1972), rev'd sub nom. English v. Virginia Probation & Parole Board, 481 F.2d 188 (4th Cir. 1973); State v. Carus, 118 N.J.Super. 159, 286 A.2d 740 (1972); Sam v. State, 500 P.2d 291 (Okl.Cr.1972). These decisions have rejected the traditional classification of marihuana with the......
-
Hamilton v. State
...21 (1972); People v. Lorentzen, 387 Mich. 167, 194 N.W.2d 827 (1972); Sam v. State, 500 P.2d 291 (Okl.Cr.App.1972); State v. Carus, 118 N.J.Super. 159, 286 A.2d 740 (1972); People v. Waxman, 388 Mich. 774, 200 N.W.2d 21 (1972); People v. McCabe, 49 Ill.2d 338, 275 N.E.2d 407 (1971); State v......
-
State v. Selvaggio
..."marijuana" and "narcotic drug"); 24:21-5(e). See also State v. DiCarlo, 67 N.J. 321, 325-327, 338 A.2d 809 (1975); State v. Carus, 118 N.J.Super. 159, 160-61, 286 A.2d 740 (Bergen Cty.Ct.1972) ("marijuana" not a "narcotic drug.") Because this contention may be critical to the sentence maxi......
-
Sam v. State
...to marihuana, 63 O.S. 1961 §§ 451 to 457. Upon considering various authorities on the subject, the court in State v. Carus, 118 N.J.Super. 159, 286 A.2d 740, at 741 (1972), observed that the 'consensus of opinion was and continues to be that marihuana . . . is not a narcotic drug and that i......