Presumption of Innocence? Perhaps not in New Jersey…
Jan 18th, 2008 | By Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. | Category: Blogs, Criminal & TrafficIn the United States of America, a person accused of a crime, including a motor vehicle violation is presumed innocent, until proven guilty. This is a basic premise in our Country.
Our government, specifically the legislature sometimes attempts to erode this basic premise by passing laws which infringe upon it. New Jersey did it again this week when it amended the NJ leaving the scene of an accident statute (N.J.S.A. 39:4-129) and the NJ failure to report an accident statute (N.J.S.A. 39:4-129). The legislature calls this amendment a “permissive inference.” Basically, the court is allowed to infer a fact from other facts in a case even if this inference is against the person accused of the crime or traffic violation.
The amendments (listed below) infer that the registered owner of the motor vehicle was involved in an accident when the driver left the scene of the accident. People leave the scene of accidents for many reasons. They may have an outstanding warrant, no car insurance, or they were drunk. All this amendment does is let the court infer that if the driver is not found at the accident scene, then the registered owned was involved. This doesn’t mean the driver was at fault. This amendment takes away the State’s burden of proving who was involved in the accident.
You can find the new law below. The underlined portion is the newly added language to the existing NJ leaving the scene of an accident offense and the NJ failure to report an accident offense:
N.J.S.A. 39:4-129:
” (e) There shall be a permissive inference that the driver of any motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to any person or damage in the amount of $250.00 or more to any vehicle or property has knowledge that he was involved in such accident. For purposes of this section, it shall not be a defense that the operator of the motor vehicle was unaware of the existence or extent of personal injury or property damage caused by the accident as long as the operator was aware that he was involved in an accident. There shall be a permissive inference that the registered owner of the vehicle which was involved in an accident subject to the provisions of this section was the person involved in the accident; provided, however, if that vehicle is owned by a rental car company or is a leased vehicle, there shall be a permissive inference that the renter or authorized driver pursuant to a rental car contract or the lessee, and not the owner of the vehicle, was involved in the accident, and the requirements and penalties imposed pursuant to this section shall be applicable to that renter or authorized driver or lessee and not the owner of the vehicle.
Any person who suppresses, by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of a violation of this section or who suppresses the identity of the violator shall be subject to a fine of not less than $250 or more than $1,000.”
N.J.S.A. 39:4-129:
“In those cases where a driver knowingly violates the provisions of this section by failing to make a written report of an accident, there shall be a permissive inference that the registered owner of the vehicle which was involved in that accident was the person involved in the accident; provided, however, if that vehicle is owned by a rental car company or is a leased vehicle, there shall be a permissive inference that the renter or authorized driver pursuant to a rental car contract or the lessee, and not the owner of the vehicle, was the person involved in the accident, and the requirements and penalties imposed pursuant to this section shall be applicable to that renter or authorized driver or lessee and not the owner of the vehicle.
Any person who suppresses, by way of concealment or destruction, any evidence of a violation of this section or who suppresses the identity of the violator shall be subject to a fine of not less than $250 or more than $1,000.”
The author of this Law Blog, Bucks County PA & Mercer County, NJ criminal attorney, Michael L. Saile, Jr., Esq. of Saile & Saile LLP, Attorneys-at-Law practices both New Jersey and Pennsylvania criminal, traffic violations, and DUI/DWI/DAI law. Check out our website for DUI penalties. We handle all NJ Municipal Court cases including DUI in the following NJ Municipal Courts: Hopewell Township, Ewing Township, Trenton, Lawrence Township, Hamilton, Pennington, and other Mercer County, Burlington County, and Camden County, NJ courts. We also handle lower bucks county DUI and traffic violation cases in the following towns: Bensalem, Southampton, Richboro, Newtown, Levittown, Langhorne, Doylestown, Warminster, Trevose, Feasterville, Warrington, Bristol, Fallsington, Yardley, New Hope, Holland, Washington Crossing, PA, and other Bucks County courts. We handle DUI cases in Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery County, PA. We are located just outside of Philadelphia in lower Bucks County.
This is just part of the state’s unintentional move toward socialism. Ignoring individual rights as outlined in the constitution in the guise of what’s best for the group as a whole. It’s the belief that a nanny state is needed because people cannot take care of themselves.
“That government is best which governs least.” -Thomas Paine
They’re attempting to shackle the limbs of defense attorneys in order to make them impotent. That’s why they have taken the jury out of many trials in the state. That’s also why this law has been passed. If the state doesn’t have to prove who was involved in the accident, it dramatically shifts the burden of proof in these cases in their favor.
Defense attorneys are our last weapon in the intellectual battle for our rights. In the end we may be forced to have to take our rights back by force of militia. Unless of course they succeed in dismantling our second amendment in the mean time as well….
Well, i would not wan t to argue out of both sides of my mouth.
the law is the law.
i am more concerned with the courts, espec ially the nj supreme court, upholding the law, whatever it may be, then to go after the legislature for creating laws.
listen, their are always to be arguments against tis new law in the article above, lewtys say someone was carjacked, and the car was used in a hit and run, are you going to say the state wqill still prosecute the vehicles owner, even in most casex the actual owner is bank, not to menbtion this fact of law.. but to the registerred owner, who was forceably removed from the car?
for5get it, its a no brainer, this law is in itself meaninless.
i m ust stick with my main argumen t throughout my 500 posts, that the law must be followed by everyone, icluding the state and the courts.
It sounds like that if you lend somebody your vehicle and they are in an accident and leave the scene of the crime, the owner of the vehicle is at fault under New Jersey law? Is this accurate Mr. Saile?..If so, there are going to be a lot of falsely accused people.
Actually, this is the result of a high number of hit and run accidents where the owner of the vehicle is uncooperative and/or untruthful as to who was in possession of the vehicle when the accident occured. It was too easy for the registered owner to just say “well, I was sleep and my sons friends were over…it could have been any of them”. Then the son covers for his friends and says the same. Many drivers KNOW who had the car but they cover for the person and before this law was amended…they get away with it.