State v. Kreyer
| Decision Date | 21 May 1985 |
| Citation | 492 A.2d 1088,201 N.J.Super. 202 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles KREYER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Robert E. Cassidy, Morristown, for defendant-appellant.
Lee S. Trumbull, Morris County Prosecutor, for plaintiff-respondent (Catherine L. Langlois, Asst. Prosecutor, on the brief).
Before Judges ANTELL, J.H. COLEMAN and SIMPSON.
The opinion of the court was delivered by,
ANTELL, P.J.A.D.
Defendant was convicted in the municipal court for operating a motor vehicle while he was under the influence of alcohol, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. Following a trial de novo in the Law Division he was again found guilty as charged. He was fined $250 and his driving privileges were suspended for a period of six months.
The only point urged by defendant on this appeal is that although his two breathalyzer tests revealed readings of .14% and .13%, he was nonetheless not under the influence of alcoholic beverage and therefore not in violation of the statute. The statute under which defendant was convicted flatly prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle by any driver whose blood alcohol concentration equals or exceeds .10%, and the penal consequences for violations thereof apply without regard to whether the operator's ability to drive a motor vehicle is impaired. We discern no lack of clarity in the terms of the statute, nor any constitutional impediment to their enforcement. For analyses of similar statutes reaching the same result in other jurisdictions, see Fuenning v. Superior Ct., County of Maricopa, 139 Ariz. 590, 680 P.2d 121, 126-127 (Sup.Ct.1983); State v. Thompson, 138 Ariz. 341, 674 P.2d 895, 898-899 (Ct.App.1983); State v. Lujan, 139 Ariz. 236, 677 P.2d 1344, 1346-1347 (Ct.App.1984); Burgv. Municipal Ct. for Santa Clara Judicial Dist., 35 Cal.3d 257, 198 Cal.Rptr. 145, 673 P.2d 732, 737-739 (Sup.Ct.1983) (vacating 144 Cal.App.3d 169, 192 Cal.Rptr. 531 (Ct.App.1983)), cert. den., ---U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 2337, 80 L.Ed.2d 812 (1984); City of Seattle v. Urban, 32 Wash.App. 634, 648 P.2d 922, 924-925 (Ct.App.1982); People v. Ziltz, 98 Ill.2d 38, 74 Ill.Dec. 40, 455 N.E.2d 70, 72-73 (Sup.Ct.1983); State v. Abbott, 15 Or.App. 205, 514 P.2d 355, 357 (Ct.App.1973); Coxe v. State, 281 A.2d 606, 607-608 (Del.Sup.Ct.1971); State v. Gerdes, 252 N.W.2d 335, 335-336 (S.D.Sup.Ct.1977).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gordon
...an argument would not advance Gordon's case in light of his blood alcohol levels which exceeded 0.10%. See State v. Kreyer, 201 N.J.Super. 202, 204, 492 A.2d 1088 (App.Div.1985). Although in the past a videotape has been considered relevant with respect to the accuracy of the breathalyzer r......
-
State v. McGinley
... ... R. 13, 14, 15 ... Our Appellate Division in State v. Ghegan, 213 N.J.Super. 383, 517 A.2d 490 (App.Div.1986), permitted a challenge to a breathalyzer reading, thus distinguishing the reading from the machine itself. In doing so it explained State v. Kreyer, 201 N.J.Super ... Page 196 ... 202, 492 A.2d 1088 (App.Div.1985), which could have been read as mandating a conviction if the test result exceeded .10%. The Ghegan court reversed a conviction based on the lower court's belief that a .10% or greater reading required that result. It held ... ...
-
State v. Colasurdo
...thereof apply without regard to whether the operator's ability to drive a motor vehicle is impaired." State v. Kreyer, 201 N.J.Super. 202, 204, 492 A.2d 1088 (App.Div.1985). It is clear defendant failed to demonstrate that the tape would be favorable to him and failed to show that secondary......
-
State v. Carey
...of operation of the vehicle, there was a violation of the statutory proscription. State v. Hammond, supra; State v. Kreyer, 201 N.J. Super. 202, 204, 492 A.2d 1088 (App.Div.1985). Thus, we need not address any constitutional arguments. Even if the defense evidence would have proved that som......