Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2751-12T3
08-26-2014
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KIT B. LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Kit B. Lee, appellant pro se. Andrew C. Carey, Acting County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Brian D. Gillet, Acting Assistant Prosecutor/Special Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Nugent and Carroll. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division, Municipal Appeal No. 64-2012. Kit B. Lee, appellant pro se. Andrew C. Carey, Acting County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Brian D. Gillet, Acting Assistant Prosecutor/Special Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant Kit B. Lee appeals from the Law Division order issued following a trial de novo in which a judge found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97, fined her $156.00, and imposed court costs. Defendant raises the following arguments for our consideration:
POINT I - STATE DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF ON CARELESS DRIVING TO ENDANGER PERSON OR PROPERTY.We affirm.
POINT II - DEFENDANT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE "PROCESS" THAT COULD SUBJECT AS THE SUMMONS WHICH WAS ISSUE[D] TO A BEIGE CAR DRIVER AT THE SCENE
POINT III - THE STATE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF DENYING TO EVIDENCE
POINT [IV] - THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF THE DEFENDANT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND SUSTAINING THE SAME WOULD BE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE TO DENY DUE PROCESS. THE CONVICTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SHOULD BE REVERSED, AND THE TICKET DISMISSED.
At the municipal court hearing on defendant's careless driving ticket, South Brunswick Patrolman George Vit testified that at 6:30 p.m. on July 26, 2012, he was dispatched to the scene of a traffic accident on Route 1 North in the vicinity of Henderson Road. Upon his arrival at the scene, he saw two vehicles stopped in the "left lane of travel" and identified defendant as the driver of a Toyota that was "behind the other vehicle." When asked to describe what type of accident it was, the officer testified, "[h]er vehicle had rear ended the vehicle in front of her." The vehicle in front of defendant's Toyota had minor damage. Due to the damage to defendant's vehicle, it had to be towed from the scene.
In response to the officer's questions, defendant said she was driving, could not stop, and rear-ended the vehicle in front of her. She said that the car in front of her had stopped abruptly and she was unable to stop in time. Officer Vit "observed that it was raining, so [he] attributed [that] factor as a contributing circumstance."
Defendant testified that the accident happened when a vehicle cut in front of the car immediately ahead of her. The car immediately ahead of her stopped "[a]t once." Defendant "was close." She turned, but struck the car ahead, damaging the front passenger side of her Toyota. Immediately before impact, defendant was driving in the fast lane of Route 1 North. Defendant, who did not speak English well, then said that she hit the island, not the car in front of her. She subsequently testified that she was approximately ten car lengths behind the car in front of her when the accident happened. Defendant also stated that the information in the police report about the location of the accident, the color of her car, and the location of the cars after the accident was incorrect.
The municipal court judge found Officer Vit's testimony credible, and found incredible defendant's testimony that she was traveling ten car lengths behind the car in front of her. The judge determined that defendant was traveling too close to the car in front of her and failed to have her car under control so as to avoid an accident. The judge concluded defendant was guilty of careless driving, fined her $156, and imposed court costs. Defendant appealed.
Following her trial de novo, a Law Division judge found defendant guilty of careless driving and imposed the same fine and costs as the municipal judge had imposed. This appeal followed.
When a defendant appeals a conviction of violating a motor vehicle law following a trial de novo, the scope of our review is both narrow and deferential. See State v. Stas, 212 N.J. 37, 48-49 (2012). Our function as a reviewing court is to determine whether the findings of the Law Division "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record." State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964). When we conclude the findings and conclusions of the Law Division meet that criterion, our "task is complete," and we "should not disturb the result" even if we "might have reached a different conclusion" or if the result was a close one. Ibid. We "defer to trial courts' credibility findings that are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999). "Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Ibid.
Having reviewed the transcripts of the municipal court and Law Division trials under that standard, and having determined that the facts found by both courts are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record, we affirm defendant's careless driving conviction.
The motor vehicle statute that penalizes careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97, states: "A person who drives a vehicle carelessly, or without due caution and circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property, shall be guilty of careless driving." In the case before us, though the officer did not witness the accident, his observations of the damage to defendant's car, her admissions to him about how the accident happened, and her own testimony, all supported the conclusion that defendant was following the car in front of her too closely and did not have sufficient control over her Toyota to avoid an accident. Those facts, which the Law Division and municipal judges found to be credible, amply supported the decisions of both judges that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of careless driving. Cf. Eaton v. Eaton, 119 N.J. 628, 643 (1990) (recognizing that following too closely is negligent and that "the plain language of N.J.S.A. 39:4-97 prohibits negligent driving"); Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 10 (1969) ("It is elementary that a following car in the same lane of traffic is obligated to maintain a reasonably safe distance behind the car ahead, having due regard to the speed of the preceding vehicle and the traffic upon and condition of the highway.").
Defendant's remaining arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION