State v. Lippincott
| Decision Date | 23 April 1973 |
| Citation | 124 N.J.Super. 498,307 A.2d 657 |
| Parties | STATE v. New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Roberta Anne LIPPINCOTT, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Municipal Court |
Ira C. Miller, Trenton, for defendant-petitioner (Pellettieri & Rabstein, Trenton, attorneys).
Hank San Giacomo, Deputy Atty. Gen., for State of New Jersey (George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney).
Robert M. Liwacz, Trenton, for City of Trenton (Robert A. Gladstone, Trenton City attorney).
Stephen J. Zielinski, Trenton, for County of Mercer (Harvey L. Stern, Mercer County attorney).
SCHROTH, J.M.C.
In this matter the law firm of Pellettieri & Rabstein (Ira C. Miller, Esquire, appearing,) was appointed to represent the defendant by the Trenton Municipal Court on the grounds that the Defendant could not afford to retain her own attorney and was entitled to representation under the guidelines of Rodriquez v. Rosenblatt, 58 N.J. 281, 277 A.2d 216 (1971).
Defendant is charged with driving while intoxicated in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4--50(a) and careless driving in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4--97.
Defense counsel has filed a motion seeking the appointment of an expert witness at public expense. Paragraph 4 of the petition states:
The undersigned, as Counsel for the Petitioner, having reviewed the facts and circumstances herein, represents to this Court that he cannot adequately prepare a defense nor sufficiently discharge his obligation to the Petitioner or the Court without the services of an expert witness competent to testify as to the consumption, ingestion and absorption rate and effects of alcohol upon the human body.
Oral arguments on said motion were heard before me on March 14, 1973. In addition, briefs were submitted by the parties.
It appears to the Court that there are at least one and possibly two questions before it. The initial inquiry is whether defendant is entitled to the appointment at public expense of an expert witness to aid in her defense. If this question is answered in the affirmative the second inquiry becomes whether the City of Trenton or the State must bear that expense which, of course, must be reasonable in nature.
In Rodriquez v. Rosenblatt, Supra, our Supreme Court held:
Our municipal court judges have had and continue to have broad discretion to assign free counsel to indigent defendants whenever justice so requires. That discretion may be exercised liberally under general guidelines without entailing the feared inundations. When the very charge and the attendant circumstances indicate that the indigent defendant will be in need of the assistance of assigned counsel, he should of course have it. Indeed, whenever the particular nature of the charge is such that imprisonment in fact or other consequence of magnitude is actually threatened or is a likelihood on conviction, the indigent defendant should have counsel assigned to him unless he chooses to proceed pro se with his plea of guilty or his defense at trial. (58 N.J. at 295, 277 A.2d at 223).
Petition of the attorney for the defendant establishes his sincere belief that he cannot adequately and properly represent here without the assistance of an expert witness who must be paid. It appears to me that to assign an attorney and then deny him the means necessary to provide an adequate, proper and complete defense, would be contrary to the intention of the Rodriquez holding.
The purposes of assigning counsel to represent an accused who cannot afford to retain an attorney are to provide equal protection under our laws and to effectuate justice. In this case it is undisputed by any of the parties that there is the need for an expert witness to adequately protect defendant's rights.
The City of Trenton in its brief argues that this court does not have jurisdiction to appoint an expert witness because that is not one of the enumerated statutory powers given to municipal courts. It should be noted that the power to assign an attorney in a case such as this one is not a statutorily enumerated power either. As was pointed out in Rodriquez, municipal court judges have had and continue to have broad discretion to assign free counsel to indigent defendants whenever justice so requires. I conclude that the right to assign an expert witness in this case is also within the court's broad discretion since it is apparent to me that justice so requires.
It is, therefore, held that petitioner is entitled to the appointment of an expert witness at public expense.
The next question is whether the reasonable fee of the expert witness should be paid by the City of Trenton, or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ryan
...one reported case which directly deals with these issues in regard to 'drunk driving cases.' That decision is State v. Lippincott, 124 N.J.Super. 498, 307 A.2d 657 (Mun.Ct.1973). In that case the Municipal Court of Trenton held that an indigent defendant in a prosecution for driving while i......
-
State v. Stockling
...to bear the expense. See, e. g., State v. Ryan, 133 N.J.Super. 1, 12, 334 A.2d 402 (Cty.Ct.1975). See also, State v. Lippincott, 124 N.J.Super. 498, 501, 307 A.2d 657 (Munic.Ct.1973), in which the court held that the county rather than the City of Trenton should pay for such services. Unque......