John Menzel | Point Pleasant DUI Lawyer

State v. Denelsbeck, 220 N.J. 575 (2015), considering whether those facing third offense DWI penalties are entitled to a jury trial, argued October 26, 2015.  State v. Taylor, ___ N.J.Super. ___ (2015), holding that one sentenced for breath test refusal after two prior DWI convictions more than 10 years in the past are entitled to a step-down and should be considered a second offender for sentencing purposes.  State v. Silva (unreported), 2015 WL 8186127 (Dkt.No. A-1011-13T2) (March 19, 2015), vacating pleas to DWI and breath test refusal due to inadequate factual bases.  State v. Robertson, 438 N.J.Super. 47 (App.Div. 2014), clarifying discoverability of electronic data from the Alcotest 7110 breath testing instrument, nowpending in the Supreme Court on the issue of stays pending appeal, ___ N.J. ___ (2015).  State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566 (2014), concerning sentencing of those convicted of breath test refusal after prior convictions for DWI.  State v. Pizzo, 422 N.J.Super. 185, reheard after remand 423 N.J.Super. 309 (App.Div. 2011), the companion case to State v. Holland, a remand considering the efficacy of substituting the Ertco-Hart digital temperature measuring system used during Alcotest recalibrations with a digital thermometer manufactured by Control Company, Inc.  State v. O’Brien, 418 N.J.Super. 428 (App.Div. 2011), clarifying eligibility for admission to pretrial intervention on criminal cases for those with prior conditional discharges for marijuana offenses.  State v. Enright, 416 N.J.Super. 391 (App.Div. 2010), concerning the effect of non-traditional post-conviction relief after appeals.  State v. Kim, 412 N.J.Super. 260 (App.Div. 2010), a puzzling affirmance of a breath test refusal conviction, following acquittal of DWI after trial, barring the challenge to the refusal conviction on procedural grounds but including a “concurrence” disagreeing with the majority’s determination on the merits.  State v. Doyle (unreported), 2010 WL 909782 (Dkt.No. A-3522-08T4) (March 12, 2010), an affirmance of a breath test refusal conviction, following acquittal of DWI after trial, because the Court would not engraft a mens rea requirement onto the elements of proof required to convict a defendant of breath test refusal.  State v. Iskander (unreported), 2010 WL 98970 (Dkt.No. A-3134-08T4) (January 13, 2010), DWI conviction reversed based on violation of right to speedy trial and fundamental fairness.  State v. Chun, et al., 191 N.J. 308 (2007), 194 N.J. 54 (2008), concerning admissibility of new breath testing technology--the Draeger Alcotest 7110 MK III C breath testing device using version NJ3.11 firmware  State v. Knolmayer (unreported), 2007 WL 685493 (Dkt.No. A-5000-05T2) (March 8, 2007), 2006 WL 871067 (Dkt.No. A-4836-04T2) (April 5, 2006), DWI conviction reversed based on the State’s failure to prove motor vehicle operation, breath test refusal conviction vacated and remanded for new trial in light of State v. Cummings  State v. Stongvila (unreported), 2007 WL 219752 (Dkt.No. A-3736-05T1) (January 30, 2007), After acquittal of DWI, breath test refusal conviction reversed based on the State’s failure to establish probable cause  State v. Kean, 185 N.J. 29 (2005), DWI and breath test refusal convictions vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Cummings  State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84 (2005), declaring unconstitutional the “preponderance of evidence” as the burden of proof for breath test refusal charges  State v. Foley, Cartegena, et al., 370 N.J.Super. 341 (Law Div. 2003), in Superior Court, Law Division, Camden County, concerning admissibility of new breath testing technology--the Draeger Alcotest 7110 MK III C breath testing device using version 3.8 firmware  State v. Farrell, 320 N.J.Super. 435 (App.Div. 1999), the leading case involving the rights to speedy trial and fundamental fairness for those charged with drunk driving in New Jersey  State v. Lutz, 309 N.J.Super. 317 (App.Div. 1998), involving the interplay between careless driving and drunk driving convictions  State v. Garthe, 145 N.J. 1 (1996), concerning the admissibility of Breathalyzer results in light of the secrecy surrounding Breathalyzer inspection procedures