Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Tischio
Citations: 506 A.2d 14; 208 N.J. Super. 343
Court: New Jersey Superior Court; February 25, 1986; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
Defendant John Tischio was stopped for erratic driving at approximately 8:15 p.m. on April 11, 1984, after admitting to consuming three to four beers. Observations by the arresting officer, including the smell of alcohol and Tischio’s physical demeanor, led to his arrest and subsequent breathalyzer tests at 9:15 and 9:24 p.m., both resulting in a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .11 percent. Tischio contested the charges, asserting he was not under the influence and claimed that even with five beers, his BAC would have been below the legal limit of .10 percent at the time of driving. Tischio was convicted in municipal court for operating a vehicle with a BAC of .10 percent or more, and this conviction was upheld in the Law Division. On appeal, he raised several arguments: entitlement to a judgment of acquittal, that the conviction was contrary to the weight of the evidence, misapplication of the burden of proof, improper admission of a breathalyzer certification card with an altered date, and the unconstitutionality of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) for lacking fair warning of prohibited conduct. The court found the breathalyzer certificates admissible as they fit an exception to the hearsay rule and were properly authenticated despite the date alteration. Additionally, the court upheld the constitutionality of the statute, referencing prior rulings that affirmed its legality. The municipal court based its conviction solely on the BAC standard, noting doubts about Tischio's impairment from alcohol based on physical evidence. Defendant argues that the State did not meet its burden of proof regarding the blood alcohol content (BAC), asserting that the .11 percent reading obtained an hour post-arrest was likely lower at the time of driving. He contends that expert testimony was necessary to establish his BAC at the critical moment of operation. The court acknowledges that the 1983 amendment to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) introduced an objective standard for evaluating drinking-driving violations. However, it rejects the notion that the State must provide scientific evidence to show that the BAC was over .10 percent at the precise time of driving, following a breathalyzer reading of .10 percent or higher. The statute permits a violation to be established based on a BAC reading of .10 percent or greater at any time after operation, provided no alcohol was consumed between driving and testing. Accepting the defendant's argument would lead to an illogical scenario where a driver could avoid conviction despite having consumed enough alcohol to exceed the legal limit, merely because they were apprehended before the BAC reached that level. Such an interpretation contradicts legislative intent. The court clarifies that the law aims to penalize driving with a sufficient alcohol concentration in the system, regardless of timing, and emphasizes that arrests require probable cause of intoxication while operating a vehicle. The court affirms both the conviction and the sentence.