State v. Sturn

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation119 N.J.Super. 80,290 A.2d 293
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph F. STURN, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date27 April 1972

Page 80

119 N.J.Super. 80
290 A.2d 293
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Joseph F. STURN, Defendant-Appellant.
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.
Submitted March 20, 1972.
Decided April 27, 1972.

Page 81

McDonough, Murray & Meeker, Westfield, for appellant (David J. Meeker, Westfield, on the brief).

Karl Asch, Union County Prosecutor, for respondent (Elson P. Kendall, Asst. Prosecutor, on the brief).

Before Judges SULLIVAN, LEONARD and CARTON.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of driving his motor vehicle while his ability to operate was impaired by consumption of alcohol (N.J.S.A. 39:4--50(b)). He does not dispute the validity of the conviction. However, he challenges the correctness of the [290 A.2d 294] trial court's action in holding him to be a subsequent offender under the statute by reason of his conviction in 1963 of drunken driving.

The problem arises because N.J.S.A. 39:4--50, the statute under which the 1963 conviction took place and which dealt only with driving under the influence, was amended in 1966. The effect of this amendment is two-pronged: (1) it retains in force and indeed reads essentially the same as the offense condemned under the former statute of driving under the influence of alcohol, and (2) it establishes a new,

Page 82

but lesser and included offense, of driving while one's ability to operate is impaired by consumption of alcohol. See State v. Macuk, 57 N.J. 1, 12, 268 A.2d 1 (1970).

Both offenses involve the same kind of conduct and are directed against essentially the same evil. That evil is the operation of a motor vehicle by one affected in such a degree that it may affect the safety of others as well as that of the operator himself. Driving under the influence involves more serious consequences than driving while impaired, but the offenses differ mainly in degree. (Indeed, as our Supreme Court has recognized, the impairment offense prescribed under (b) is a lesser included offense of driving under the influence. State v. Macuk, Supra.)

The original statute, as well as the individual subsections of the new statute, contain provisions for the imposition of additional penalties for subsequent offenders. As indicated above, defendant's 1963 conviction was under the older statute. His present conviction is under subsection (b) of the new statute.

Two narrow issues are thus presented: (1) may a conviction for driving with impaired faculties under (b) be deemed a subsequent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State v. Oliver
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 8, 1996
    ...not necessarily create ex post facto problems where additional punishment comes as a result of subsequent offense); State v. Sturn, 119 N.J.Super. 80, 83, 290 A.2d 293 (App.Div.1972), certif. denied, 61 N.J. 157, 293 A.2d 387 (1972) (use of prior conviction to invoke second offender penalti......
  • State v. DiCarlo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 13, 1975
    ...vehicles by those whose faculties are so impaired as to present a danger to the safety of others as well as themselves. State v. Sturn, 119 N.J.Super. 80, 82, 290 A.2d 293 (App.Div.1972), certif. den., 61 N.J. 157, 293 A.2d 387 (1972). On the other hand the Controlled Dangerous Substances A......
  • State v. Conners
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • November 13, 1973
    ...the breath test. See State v. Cannon, 94 N.J.Super. 66, 69, 226 A.2d 755 (Cty.Ct.1967), overruled on other grounds in State v. Sturn, 119 N.J.Super. 80, 290 A.2d 293 (App.Div. 1972). This is not an occasional problem. It is one which confronts the court in growing numbers. Statistics mainta......
  • State v. Hawks
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • March 23, 1989
    ...of Uniform Narcotic Drug Law), with the goals of purely deterrence-oriented statutes such as the Graves Act, see, e.g., State v. Sturn, 119 N.J.Super. 80, 82, 290 A.2d 293 (App.Div.) (enhanced punishment imposed for second violation of drunk-driving statute even though second offense occurr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State v. Oliver
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • November 8, 1996
    ...not necessarily create ex post facto problems where additional punishment comes as a result of subsequent offense); State v. Sturn, 119 N.J.Super. 80, 83, 290 A.2d 293 (App.Div.1972), certif. denied, 61 N.J. 157, 293 A.2d 387 (1972) (use of prior conviction to invoke second offender penalti......
  • State v. DiCarlo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 13, 1975
    ...vehicles by those whose faculties are so impaired as to present a danger to the safety of others as well as themselves. State v. Sturn, 119 N.J.Super. 80, 82, 290 A.2d 293 (App.Div.1972), certif. den., 61 N.J. 157, 293 A.2d 387 (1972). On the other hand the Controlled Dangerous Substances A......
  • State v. Conners
    • United States
    • New Jersey County Court
    • November 13, 1973
    ...the breath test. See State v. Cannon, 94 N.J.Super. 66, 69, 226 A.2d 755 (Cty.Ct.1967), overruled on other grounds in State v. Sturn, 119 N.J.Super. 80, 290 A.2d 293 (App.Div. 1972). This is not an occasional problem. It is one which confronts the court in growing numbers. Statistics mainta......
  • State v. Hawks
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • March 23, 1989
    ...of Uniform Narcotic Drug Law), with the goals of purely deterrence-oriented statutes such as the Graves Act, see, e.g., State v. Sturn, 119 N.J.Super. 80, 82, 290 A.2d 293 (App.Div.) (enhanced punishment imposed for second violation of drunk-driving statute even though second offense occurr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT