Lexplug logoLexplug

State of New Jersey v. Florence B. Johnson

The Supreme Court of New Jersey
42 N.J. 146, 199 A.2d 809 (1964)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A blood alcohol concentration (BAC) reading of 0.15% or more from a scientifically reliable test creates a strong, though rebuttable, statutory presumption that a defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This reading alone is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


Facts:

  • After drinking two two-ounce jiggers of rum in the afternoon, Mrs. Johnson drove her car to Livingston to purchase liquor.
  • Police, alerted to a possible intoxicated driver, observed Johnson's car traveling very slowly and having audible difficulty shifting gears.
  • An officer stopped Johnson and noted she fumbled for her license, had a flushed face, bloodshot eyes, and an odor of alcohol on her breath.
  • Johnson repeatedly insisted to the officers that she had not consumed any alcohol.
  • When Johnson exited her vehicle at the officer's request, she did so with difficulty, staggered, and was unable to walk normally.
  • At the police station, Johnson was crying, nervous, and required assistance to walk up the steps.
  • Johnson consented to a drunkometer test, which was administered and yielded a reading of 0.18% by weight of alcohol in her blood.
  • A police physician observed a strong odor of alcohol and noted that Johnson failed several coordination and balance tests, concluding she was not safe to drive, even after making allowances for her pre-existing hypertension and hyperthyroidism.

Procedural Posture:

  • Johnson was convicted in the Livingston Municipal Court (court of first instance) for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
  • As it was her second offense, the court imposed a mandatory sentence of three months imprisonment and a 10-year license revocation.
  • Johnson appealed to the Essex County Court, which conducted a de novo review on the record and again found her guilty, affirming the sentence.
  • Johnson, as appellant, then appealed to the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).
  • The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, concluding that the State, as appellee, had failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • The State then petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey (the state's highest court) for certification, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a drunkometer reading of 0.15% or more create a statutory presumption of being 'under the influence' that is sufficient, by itself, to sustain a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor?


Opinions:

Majority - Hall, J.

Yes, a drunkometer reading of 0.15% or more creates a statutory presumption sufficient to sustain a conviction. The court held that the legislature, by enacting N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.1, accepted the scientific truth that every person with a BAC of 0.15% or more is physiologically under the influence of intoxicating liquor for the purposes of operating a motor vehicle. While this presumption is rebuttable, it is 'exceedingly strong' and 'most difficult to overcome.' The court found that such a reading alone is sufficient to prove the state's case beyond a reasonable doubt and does not require corroborating evidence of physical symptoms. Furthermore, the court took judicial notice of the scientific reliability of the drunkometer, holding that its results are admissible without antecedent expert testimony, provided the state establishes that the specific test was properly administered by a qualified operator using equipment in proper working order. The court also clarified the standard of appellate review for non-jury trials, stating that a trial court's findings of fact should not be disturbed unless the reviewing court is thoroughly satisfied that the finding is clearly mistaken and the interests of justice demand intervention.



Analysis:

This decision solidified the use of scientific evidence in DUI prosecutions in New Jersey by establishing the statutory presumption arising from a high BAC reading as powerful, standalone proof of impairment. It effectively lowered the prosecution's burden by accepting breathalyzer technology as scientifically reliable through judicial notice, eliminating the need for foundational expert testimony on the device's validity in every case. The case also provides a seminal articulation of the standard for appellate review of bench trials, emphasizing deference to the trial court's fact-finding role and discouraging appellate courts from simply re-weighing evidence. This dual impact streamlined DUI convictions and defined the boundaries of appellate oversight in non-jury matters.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State of New Jersey v. Florence B. Johnson (1964)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"