Under the Influence Evidence Makes BAC Unnecessary – State v. Ward (UNP)

State v. Ward is an UNPUBLISHED Appellate division decision that was released this morning. In this case, the Court ruled that even if the defendant’s BAC was gleaned from the breathalyzer was incorrect, the police testimony about his level of intoxication was more than sufficient to support a finding of guilty.

The Appellate Division ducked the issue of the admissibility of the BAC in this case.
As an interesting side note, in the opinion, the defendant’s BAC was reported to be a .09. Accordingly, he would be subject to the 3-month suspension required for first offenders in a non-school zone cases either on the basis of his BAC or the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol. (See NJSA 39:4-50(a)(1)(i)). The BAC issue would have been much more important if the readings had been reported as 0.10% or greater. Had that been the case, both the Appellate Division and the Court below would have had to deal with the issue of the admissibility of the BAC due to sentencing issues (See NJSA 39:4-50(a)(1)(ii)).

Download a copy of UNPUBLISHED holding in State v. Ward

Category: Muni-Mail Archive