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.