New Jersey Criminal Attorney Blog

Franklin Lakes police arrested former Mets and Yankees pitcher Dwight Gooden for driving under the influence, child endangerment, and other charges on Tuesday after he was involved in an accident while driving his son to school.

Gooden allegedly struck a car in front of him, prompting a call to police. Authorities later stopped Gooden, who was driving a half mile from the scene of the accident. According to police, Gooden's 5-year-old son was not wearing a seat belt, and had bumped his head on the seat in front of him.

Although the story is noteworthy because of Gooden's celebrity, it is also worth noting that a DWI stop can often result in related charges that could complicate a defendant's case. In addition to DWI, Gooden was charged with being under the influence of a controlled dangerous substance, endangering the welfare of a child, DWI with a child passenger, leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, and other charges.

Further complicating Gooden's case is his history of DWI convictions. In 2005 he was sentenced to probation for speeding from police while under the influence of a controlled substance. As a repeat offender, he could be subject to more severe penalties than a first offender would face.

Making sense of the range of penalties and understanding the possible defenses to multiple charges may seem daunting, but talking with an attorney can help put the possible consequences into perspective.

An appellate panel affirmed the conviction of a DWI defendant who refused to take a breathalyzer test, even though the defendant asserted that he did not know enough English to understand the police officer's pre-test statement. It was not enough to assert a lack of understanding, the Appellate Division ruled in an opinion released yesterday. Rather, evidence must be introduced to show the defendant's lack of understanding.

In State v. Kim, the Court held that "[t]he mere allegation that defendant did not have sufficient comprehension of the English language to knowingly refuse to submit breath samples does not place a material issue in dispute to require an evidentiary hearing. . . let alone void the basis for his conviction."

At times, as the police officer spoke during the stop in question, the defendant stated that he did not understand what was being said. However, the Appellate Division found that the defendant understood English, and was even familiar with his rights, including the right to an attorney and the right to decline to make a statement.

The opinion makes it clear that any question about a defendant's ability to understand the police officer's statements must be raised in a motion, and evidence of the defendant's ability to understand must be offered to the court. It is not enough merely to assert that the defendant failed to understand the officer.

The opinion also underscores the importance of identifying all issues and raising them in a timely manner so that the court has an opportunity to develop the evidence on the record. Failure to do so could mean the difference between conviction and acquittal.

In New Jersey, a "disorderly persons offense" refers to a category of violations that are adjudicated at the Municipal Court level rather than in State Superior Court. However, even though such violations are handled in town courts, they can still result in serious penalties including substantial fines and even jail time.

Some examples of disorderly persons offenses include possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana, shoplifting items with a retail value of less than $200, and lewdness, among others. A conviction can mean a range of penalties, up to a $500 fine and six months in prison. Additionally, a conviction could show up on future background checks affecting employment and professional licensing.

There are ways to fight such charges, have them downgraded, or seek alternative penalties that can save time and money and, in some cases, keep a person's record clean. And in cases where the accused has already pleaded guilty or has been convicted in court, expungement may be available.

Before pleading guilty to a disorderly persons offense in Municipal Court, it is worth consulting an attorney on your range of options. Doing so could save a great deal of time and money in the long run.

New Jersey legislators are considering a bill today that would require police to include information on accident reports concerning driver distractions, a step toward compiling statewide statistics on distracted driving. However, the law could have consequences for drivers accused of taking their eyes off the road.

The bill identifies some driver distractions you might expect, like talking on a cell phone, using a GPS device, or tinkering with the car stereo. But it also identifies some more unusual distractions, like using a "facsimile machine," or distractions due to "personal grooming." The bill also requires the Commissioner of Transportation to use the information to compile annual reports on distracted driving, but it could have consequences for drivers.

Drivers who are distracted could face charges that carry a range of fines and potentially result in points on their licenses leading to increased insurance rates. Even if a police officer was not present at the time of an accident, another driver can make a complaint if the responsible party was either careless or reckless while operating his or her vehicle.

However, there are options for drivers who are accused of driving carelessly or recklessly that could reduce their penalties and limit their liability in the case of an accident. If you think a car accident might expose you to costly traffic violations or a potential lawsuit, speaking with an attorney could help save time and money.