State v. Hahn
| Decision Date | 17 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-4755-18 |
| Citation | 473 N.J.Super. 349,280 A.3d 836 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Scott M. HAHN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
473 N.J.Super. 349
280 A.3d 836
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Scott M. HAHN, Defendant-Appellant.
DOCKET NO. A-4755-18
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued March 30, 2022
Decided August 17, 2022
Marcia Blum, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Marcia Blum, Newark, of counsel and on the brief).
Patrick R. McAvaddy, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney; Patrick R. McAvaddy, on the brief).
Before Judges Messano, Accurso and Marczyk.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MESSANO, P.J.A.D.
On Monday afternoon, February 22, 2016, defendant Scott Hahn exited the Holland Tunnel from New York City and drove southbound on the New Jersey Turnpike extension toward the toll booths at Interchange 14C in Jersey City. Timothy O'Donnell was also proceeding southbound and stopped his car to obtain a toll ticket at the left-most toll booth; his five-year-old daughter was in the backseat. Defendant's car slammed into the O'Donnell car, propelling it into oncoming traffic, where there was a second collision with an ambulance van. O'Donnell was pronounced dead at the scene; his daughter died en route to the Jersey City Medical Center.
A Hudson County grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with two counts of first-degree aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a) (counts one and two), two counts of second-degree vehicular homicide, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5(a) (counts three and four), one count of third-degree possession of gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10.2(a) (count five), and
one count of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) and (3) (count six). A jury convicted defendant of all counts.
The judge denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or alternatively a new trial. After merging the vehicular homicide convictions into the aggravated manslaughter convictions, the judge sentenced defendant to consecutive sixteen-year terms of imprisonment subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The judge imposed concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment on the two drug convictions but ordered they run consecutive to the manslaughter convictions. In the aggregate, the judge imposed a thirty-seven-year term of imprisonment, with a twenty-seven-year, two-month, and eleven-day period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant raises the following issues for our consideration:
POINT I
DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT MUST BE SUPPRESSED BECAUSE THE POLICE FAILED TO HONOR HIS ATTEMPTS TO EXERCISE HIS MIRANDA [
1 ] RIGHTS AND WITHHELD INFORMATION ESSENTIAL TO AN INFORMED WAIVER OF HIS RIGHTS, RESULTING IN A WAIVER THAT WAS NEITHER KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT NOR VOLUNTARY.[2 ]
POINT II
THE OMISSION OF A CHARGE ON SECOND-DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER AS A LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF FIRST-DEGREE AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER IS REVERSIBLE ERROR. (Not Raised Below)
POINT III
THE ASSURANCE THAT THE EXPERT OPINIONS OF THE STATE'S PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGIST AND ITS ACCIDENT-RECONSTRUCTIONIST WERE BASED ON "A REASONABLE DEGREE OF SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY" VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL. (Not Raised Below)
POINT IV
THE SENTENCE OF [THIRTY-SEVEN] YEARS, [TWENTY-SEVEN] YEARS AND TWO-AND-[ONE]-HALF MONTHS WITHOUT PAROLE, IS BASED ON FLAWED FINDINGS OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS
AND A FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE OVERALL FAIRNESS OF THE CONSECUTIVE, AGGREGATE TERM, AND IS EXCESSIVE.
We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
The State's evidence at trial included data retrieved from defendant's Mercedes. The vehicle's computer revealed defendant's car was going fifty-three miles per hour when the crash occurred. Subsequent investigation of the Mercedes revealed no defects or mechanical problems that may have caused the crash.
Defendant told a responding New Jersey State Police (NJSP) Trooper that he had a seizure, and he was taken by ambulance to the Jersey City Medical Center. Although he denied at the scene having taken any drugs, defendant acknowledged at the hospital emergency room that he took an amphetamine, Adderall, over the weekend. Blood drawn from defendant pursuant to a warrant approximately four hours after the crash revealed the presence of methamphetamines, amphetamines, and GHB.
The day after the crash, while still hospitalized, defendant waived his Miranda rights and provided a formal audio statement to Detective Adam Brozek, assigned to the NJSP Homicide North Unit. Among other things, defendant admitted having ingested Adderall over the prior weekend. The statement was played for the jury, and we discuss further its contents below.
A search of defendant's car pursuant to a warrant resulted in the recovery of an eyedropper bottle from the passenger side floorboard and a clear plastic bottle under the driver's seat, both containing liquid. The eyedropper bottle contained GBL, and the plastic bottle contained mostly GHB with a small portion of GBL. The State's expert forensic toxicologist, Bridget Verdino, explained GHB is an illegal central nervous system depressant taken to produce euphoria, but once the euphoria
wears off, the drug causes "drowsiness, dizziness, and overall depression of heart rate,
blood pressure, [and] loss of motor coordination." GBL is a precursor drug that becomes GHB when ingested.
Dr. Robert Pandina, the State's expert in psychopharmacology who specializes in the effects of drugs on human physiology and behavior, explained that high doses of amphetamines like Adderall engender feelings of well-being and excitement, and can cause drivers to speed up, or take risks, and can affect their attention in controlling their vehicle. However, Pandina could not opine that defendant was under the influence of amphetamines or methamphetamines at the time of the crash.
Pandina explained that GHB, a synthetic drug which "mimic[s] the effects of naturally-occurring" opiates such as heroin and morphine, acts as "a central nervous system depressant" and may be prescribed to treat anxiety and serious sleep disorders. Because GHB is a sedative, it "slow[s a person's] reaction time ... decrease[s the] ability to react ... appropriately to the environmental demands," and affects a person's "focus." Combining the "upper" of an amphetamine or methamphetamine with the "downer" of GHB may potentially cause an erratic interaction or may prolong the "euphoric effect."
Pandina opined defendant "was under the influence of GHB at the time of the crash, ... the GHB level was significantly higher at the time of the crash than when his blood was tested four hours later, and ... it ... would cause impairment in fundamental abilities to operate a motor vehicle." He further opined defendant's level of impairment was "a significant contributing factor to the crash."
The jury also heard from a driver who saw defendant slumped over the wheel of his car, apparently asleep, while stopped at a traffic light after emerging from the Holland Tunnel. The driver of the ambulance that struck the O'Donnell vehicle also testified, and the jury saw video traffic camera footage of the actual crash.
Defendant produced a forensic toxicologist as an expert to criticize the NJSP lab procedures, refute the level of GHB in
defendant's blood, and question whether the drug "may or may not [have been] present." Defendant also testified that he suffered a seizure as he emerged from the Holland Tunnel. He did not know how GHB was in his system, or in his car, and claimed to have discovered the bottle in his overnight bag, opened it, and spilled some on his lap, burning his skin. As for the presence of methamphetamines in his blood, defendant assumed it was due to second-hand smoke he was exposed to on the previous Saturday and Sunday night while spending time with friends who were smoking crystal meth.
II.
We consider the arguments raised by defendant in Point I regarding the audio-recorded statement he provided the day after the crash while in the hospital. As the prosecutor recognized in his opening statement, "[s]ome of the admissions that ... defendant made are ... crucial in this case." A judge, who was not the trial judge, conducted a hearing pursuant to N.J.R.E. 104(c) regarding the admissibility of the statement. Detective Brozek testified at the hearing.3
Brozek described meeting defendant at the Jersey City Medical Center on the morning of February 23, 2016, after obtaining permission from medical personnel attending to defendant to speak with him. Defendant was alert and able to answer questions.
Brozek advised defendant he, along with Detectives Christian Velazquez and Jason Kazan, were "currently investigating the motor vehicle crash and how it occurred." Brozek testified defendant was not under arrest because "[t]here was still an ongoing investigation into the crash." He advised defendant of his Miranda rights and had defendant sign a Miranda waiver card. The audiotaped statement includes defendant's oral responses to the detective's questions, including defendant's affirmations that he understood his rights and felt well enough to give a statement.
The following colloquy4 transpired:
Det. Brozek: So[,] you wish to continue with the interview?...
Defendant: Can I ask a question? Just because I'm sure ... my car is the one that caused all this, I should probably have an attorney present?[5 ]
Det. Brozek: Okay. Like I said, it's a pending investigation we have. I'm in the unit with the State Police that's currently investigating the motor vehicle crash and how it occurred, and we're trying to get –
Defendant: Right.
Det. Brozek: — you know, surveillance footage. So as far as a final ... result of
To continue reading
Request your trial