STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DUKE NYANGWESO (11-5, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2500-15T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DUKE NYANGWESO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted February 14, 2017 – Decided July 20, 2017
Before Judges Rothstadt and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Hudson County, Municipal Appeal
No. 11-5.
Beninato & Matrafajlo, L.L.C., attorneys for
appellant (Dan T. Matrafajlo, on the brief).
Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Erin M. Campbell,
Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Duke Nyangweso was convicted in municipal court for
careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97. He appealed and after a trial
de novo in the Law Division, he was again convicted on January 15,
2016. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
On March 3, 2015, defendant was issued a summons for careless
driving by a New Jersey State Trooper. He later pled not guilty,
and trial was conducted in Bayonne Municipal Court. The State
presented the testimony of one witness, Cassandra Markman.
Defendant did not present any witnesses.
Markman testified that:
I was driving across the [Bayonne Bridge] at
seven, . . . something in the morning. I looked
in my rear view mirror. Traffic was pretty
far behind me. The next thing I know traffic
is slowing down and I get hit from the rear,
which in turn caused me to hit another car in
front of me. I get out of my car and I go
around and I look and I see my bumper is
hanging a little in the back.
Markman also identified defendant in court as the driver of the
vehicle that rear-ended her.
Following the parties' summation, the municipal court judge
found defendant guilty of careless driving. The judge rejected
defendant's argument that Markman's testimony did not establish
beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty. The judge
found Markman to be credible, and determined that her testimony
proved defendant was not operating his car with care when he hit
Markman's car in the rear as she was slowing down in traffic on
the Bayonne Bridge.
2 A-2500-15T3
Upon a trial de novo on the record, the Law Division judge
found defendant guilty anew. Defendant contended there was no
evidence indicating that he was inattentive and drove carelessly,
and that the municipal court found him guilty based upon the theory
of res ipsa loquitor – the sole fact that he rear-ended Markman,
constituted careless driving. The Law Division judge was
unpersuaded, and determined that the municipal court did not apply
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in finding defendant guilty. He
ruled:
The accident itself, the impact, is direct
evidence. The circumstantial evidence is what
led up to it. This would not have occurred
but for the fact that the defendant was
inattentive, which in my mind means the same
as without due caution and circumspection,
right, and frankly, that's what this [c]ourt
finds and it fits within the definition of
careless driving.
The [municipal court] stated and with these
transcripts, it's always a little difficult,
defendant had or should have had [complete]
control of his vehicle, that means complete
control, I believe . . . if he had total and
complete control of his vehicle, he wouldn't
have bumped into anything.
This appeal followed.
Before us, defendant argues:
POINT ONE
[THE] BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE STATE TO
PROVE EACH ELEMENT OF CARELESS DRIVING.
3 A-2500-15T3
POINT TWO
THE [LAW DIVISION] CLEARLY MISINTERPRETED THE
CARELESS DRIVING STATUTE.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the
findings by the Law Division judge could reasonably have been
reached on sufficient credible evidence in the record, giving due
deference to the credibility assessments of the municipal court
judge and considering the proofs as a whole. State v. Locurto,
157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146,
161-62 (1964)). However, we review legal issues de novo. State
v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 176 (2010).
Citing State v. Lutz, 309 N.J. Super. 317, 326-27 (App. Div.
1998), and State v. Wenzel, 113 N.J. Super. 215, 217 (App. Div.
1971), defendant contends that the Law Division inappropriately
applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor in finding him guilty
of careless driving merely because he rear-ended Markman's
vehicle.
In Wenzel, we reversed the defendant's conviction based on
what amounted to the "res ipsa doctrine," which "has no place in
criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, where the burden is
totally on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant violated a penal (or quasi-penal) statute." Id. at 218.
There, the defendant was charged with careless driving when his
tractor-trailer jackknifed and struck another vehicle. Id. at
4 A-2500-15T3
216. The State's only witness, a police officer, did not see the
accident and there was no evidence establishing that the defendant
drove without due caution or circumspection. Id. at 216-17.
Nonetheless, both the municipal court and the Law Division
determined that an otherwise unexplained jackknifing of a truck
was sufficient to establish careless driving. Id. at 217. We
disagreed, concluding there was no testimony that the defendant
was speeding, or that he had driven carelessly. Id. at 217-18.
Relying upon our precedent in Wenzel, we concluded in Lutz,
that the municipal court and the Law Division judges improperly
applied a res ipsa loquitur analysis in finding the defendant
guilty of careless driving. Lutz, supra, 309 N.J. Super. at 326.
We noted, "other than the [car] accident itself, the State only
presented [the] defendant's statement that his vehicle began to
slide on the wet highway and continued to do so when he tapped his
brakes." Id. at 327.
The underlying principles of Lutz and Wenzel apply here. 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." N.J.S.A. 39:4-97. The only evidence presented by the
State was Markman's testimony that defendant rear-ended her
vehicle as she was slowing down on the bridge. We conclude there
5 A-2500-15T3
is no support in the record for the Law Division's finding that
Markman's testimony was sufficient evidence that defendant was
guilty of careless driving.
Contrary to the Law Division's statement that its decision
was not based upon res ipsa loquitor, it effectively applied that
standard. The mere fact that a collision occurred does not
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was inattentive
or driving carelessly. Given that the State Trooper did not
testify, there was no indication what observations he made at the
accident scene, or any statements made by defendant, that
influenced his decision to issue defendant a summons for careless
driving. As in Lutz, "[t]he State presented no evidence indicating
that defendant had been speeding, driving too fast for the wet
road conditions, distracted or otherwise driving without due
caution and circumspection." Lutz, supra, 309 N.J. Super. at 327.
Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to support
defendant's conviction for careless driving.
Reversed and remanded to the Law Division for an entry of an
order vacating defendant's conviction.
6 A-2500-15T3