State v. Knowles

• Decision Date: 15 November 1933
• Citation: 169 A. 35
• Parties: STATE v. KNOWLES.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

169 A. 35

STATE

v. KNOWLES.

Court of Special Sessions of New Jersey, Essex County.

Nov. 15, 1933.

Harry Knowles was convicted of drunken driving, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Howe & Davis, of Orange, for appellant.

William A. Wachenfeld, Prosecutor of the Pleas, of Newark (by Leon W. Kapp, of Newark), for the State.

HARTSHORNE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction of drunken driving under section 14, subdivision 3, of the Motor Vehicle Act (P. L. 1921, p. 643, c. 208 [Comp. St Supp. § 135—63 subd. (3)]). The defendant rests his appeal solely on technical objections to the record below, having refused, both at the trial below and at that here, to enter a defense on the merits, in order to obviate the possible waiver of his technical defenses under the rule laid down in State v. Rosenblum, 102 N. J. Law, 125, 130 A. 614.

The alleged offense occurred May 14, 19.13, subsequent to the enactment of the supplement to the Motor Vehicle Act (P. L. 1963, chapter 97, p. 200 [Comp. St. Supp. § 135—79 (a) et seq.]). This enactment radically changes the entire appellate procedure under the Motor Vehicle Act, and a concurrent enactment (P. L. 1933, chapter 96, p. 198 [Comp. St. Supp. § 179—715R (1506a) et seq.]) similarly alters the appellate procedure under the Traffic Act. In the first place, the previous appellate jurisdiction of the common pleas is transferred in its entirety to the court of special sessions. In the second place, the act (Comp. St. Supp. § 179—715R (1506b) provides that: "Such appeal shall not operate to bring up the proceedings in the court appealed from for review, but shall operate as an application for a trial de novo and as a consent that said court of special sessions may, during or before the trial, amend the complaint by making the charge more specific, definite, or certain, or in any other manner, including the substitution of any charge growing out of the same transaction or surrounding circumstances, of which the tribunal appealed from had jurisdiction." The act further provides that such appeal shall operate as a waiver of time limitation provisions, but that, if a new charge is made, the court shall give the defendant opportunity to defend. These last provisions are, evidently, upon the theory that there is no constitutional right to appeal (Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 508, 23 S. Ct 390, 47 L. Ed. 563; Lott v. Pittman, 243 U. S. 588, 37 S. Ct. 473, 61 L. Ed. 915), so that the Legislature can grant same upon such...