STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ELENA WAGNER-BALL (19-012, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0421-19
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ELENA WAGNER-BALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Argued October 4, 2021 – Decided October 29, 2021
Before Judges Sumners and Firko.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Morris County, Municipal Appeal No. 19-
012.
Gerald D. Miller argued the cause for appellant (Miller,
Meyerson & Corbo, attorneys; Elena Wagner-Ball on
the pro se brief).
Jessica L. Marshall, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the
cause for respondent (Robert J. Carroll, Morris County
Prosecutor, attorney; Jessica L. Marshall, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Following a trial de novo in the Law Division, defendant Elena
Wagner-Ball was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-
50, based upon observation and not the results of her Alcotest that were deemed
inadmissible. Defendant appeals, contending in her pro se merits brief:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN UNDERMINING
CRITICAL EVIDENCE RULE 402, SEE ALSO
[RULE] 403. SUPPRESSION OF EXCULPATORY
EVIDENCE VIOLATES THE DUE PROCESS
[CLAUSE] REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
PROSECUTOR ACTED IN BAD FAITH. (STATE
V[.] KNIGHT, 145 N.J. [233,] 245 [(1996)])[.]
POINT II
WITHHOLDING CRITICAL EVIDENCE
PREVENTED THE DEFENSE FROM
ESTABLISHING THE ASSERTION THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INTOXICATED BUT HAD
ONE SHOT (30ML) OF ALCOHOL AND IS
SUFFERING FROM MEDICAL ISSUES.
DEFENDANT CONCLUDES THE REVIEW OF THE
TRIAL RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CREATES A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTION. (STATE V[.]
VILORIO RAMIREZ, DOCKET NO. A-396217 T1,
2017)[.]
After reviewing the record considering the contentions advanced on appeal and
applicable law, we affirm.
A-0421-19
2
Under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, "[a] person who operates a motor vehicle while
under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . or operates a motor vehicle with a
blood alcohol concentration [(BAC)] of 0.08% or more by weight of alcohol in
the defendant's blood" is guilty of DWI. A per se violation of DWI can be
established by the admissibility of Alcotest results showing a BAC at or
exceeding the statutory limits. State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, 66 (2008).
Intoxication, however, may be also be proven by evidence of a defendant's
physical condition. State v. Kashi, 360 N.J. Super. 538, 545 (App. Div. 2003).
The State need not prove "that the accused be absolutely 'drunk' in the sense of
being sodden with alcohol. It is sufficient if the presumed offender has imbibed
to the extent that his [or her] physical coordination or mental faculties are
deleteriously affected." State v. Nemesh, 228 N.J. Super. 597, 608 (App. Div.
1988) (quoting State v. Emery, 27 N.J. 348, 355 (1958)).
Recognizing that "sobriety and intoxication are matters of common
observation and knowledge, New Jersey has permitted the use of lay opinion
testimony to establish alcohol intoxication." State v. Bealor, 187 N.J. 574, 585
(2006). Accordingly, it is well established that a police officer's subjective
observation of an intoxicated defendant is sufficient ground to sustain a DWI
conviction. A DWI conviction can be proven based on a finding that slurred
A-0421-19
3
speech, disheveled appearance, bloodshot eyes, alcoholic odor on the breath,
and abrasive demeanor were evidence of the defendant's intoxication. State v.
Morris, 262 N.J. Super. 413, 421 (App. Div. 1993); see also State v. Cryan, 363
N.J. Super. 442, 455-56 (App. Div. 2003) (sustaining DWI conviction based on
an officer's observations of defendant's bloodshot eyes, hostility, and strong
odor of alcohol); State v. Cleverley, 348 N.J. Super. 455, 465 (App. Div. 2002)
(sustaining DWI conviction based on officer's observation of the defendant's
driving without headlights, inability to perform field sobriety tests,
combativeness, swaying, and detection of odor of alcohol on the defendant's
breath); State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. Super. 244, 251-52 (App. Div. 2001)
(sustaining DWI conviction based on officer's observations of watery eyes,
slurred and slow speech, staggering, inability to perform field sobriety tests, and
defendant's admission to drinking alcohol earlier in the day).
Defendant argues she provided Jefferson Township Police Officer John
Ondish with two valid Alcotest breath samples showing a BAC under the
intoxication standard of 0.08%, but her due process rights were violated when
the municipal court judge––followed by the Law Division judge––improperly
suppressed this evidence at trial. Defendant argues the Alcotest results should
A-0421-19
4
have been admitted under Rules 402 and 403 because they were evidence that
she was not intoxicated. We are unpersuaded by defendant's arguments.
Ondish testified the Alcotest resulted in a control test failure. He believed
the failure was because "[defendant] sucked in on the hose, instead of blowing
into the hose." 1 Due to the control test failure, the State did not rely on the
Alcotest test results as proof of defendant's DWI. The municipal court judge
did not admit the Alcotest results because they were derived from an improperly
functioning machine, therefore they were not reliable evidence to prove or
disprove defendant's intoxication. The Law Division reasoned that since the
results from the incident were not moved into evidence during the municipal
court trial, it could not consider it on de novo review. The Law Division also
noted that because the State was not relying on the Alcotest results, defendant's
argument to admit them was "misplaced."
1
Ondish then transported defendant to Sparta Township to readminister the
Alcotest. Defendant refused to take the test, resulting in Ondish issuing her
summonses for refusal to submit to a breathalyzer/chemical test, N.J.S.A.
39:3-10.24, and refusal to submit to chemical test, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a. The
municipal court judge found her not guilty of the former charge but guilty of the
latter charge. The Law Division reversed the guilty verdict for refusal to submit
to chemical test, because the State failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant was advised of the consequences of refusing to submit.
A-0421-19
5
Because there was a control test failure, it was proper for both courts to
find the Alcotest results were inadmissible. See Chun, 194 N.J. at 134(reiterating that as a pre-condition for admissibility of Alcotest results, the State
must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the Alcotest was in
working order and had been "inspected according to procedure"; (2) "the
operator was certified"; and (3) the operator administered the test "according to
official procedure"). Results derived from an improperly functioning Alcotest
machine are not reliable evidence to prove or disprove defendant's intoxication.
The results, therefore, did not "hav[e] a tendency in reason to prove or disprove
any fact of consequence," N.J.R.E. 401, nor did they have any "probative value,"
N.J.R.E. 403. Hence, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to admit the
Alcotest results. See State v. Buda, 195 N.J. 278, 294-95 (2008) (holding we
affirm a trial court's evidentiary ruling absent an abuse of discretion).
Lastly, defendant argues the State did not prove that the Alcotest results
below .08% demonstrated she was not intoxicated. She argues Ondish was not
an expert qualified to testify that she was intoxicated and the testimony of one
officer is not sufficient to prove the State's case. She also argues Ondish is not
a credible witness because he testified "I do not recall" multiple times during
the trial and is biased against her. In addition, defendant cites the "Confusion
A-0421-19
6
Doctrine,"2 claiming she did not understand Ondish's directions during his
administration of the field sobriety tests on her because English was not her first
language. Again, we are unpersuaded.
2
The "Confusion Doctrine" is a discreet doctrine recognized in some
jurisdictions regarding the warnings required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966) and used to find a motorist guilty of refusing take a breathalyzer
test. As explained by our Supreme Court,
[s]ome jurisdictions have held that when a motorist is
confused by the two warnings concerning assistance of
counsel—one warning (Miranda) according the
assistance of counsel, the other (breath test refusal) not
according assistance of counsel—and then refuses to
take the breath test in the mistaken belief that the
refusal is privileged, the motorist should not suffer the
consequences of confusion and not be penalized for the
refusal.
State v. Leavitt, 107 N.J. 534, 538-39 (1987) (emphasis
omitted) (citations omitted).
The doctrine has been discussed in two published cases in New Jersey,
Leavitt and State v. Sherwin, 236 N.J. Super. 510 (App. Div. 1989), but our
courts have never embraced or applied the doctrine. In Leavitt, the Supreme
Court stated,
Without resolving whether any defendant may validly
assert the defense, we agree with the view expressed in
the Attorney General's brief that the "exclusive, narrow
exception to the general rule that refusals cannot be
validly justified," would have to be premised on a
record developed by a defendant to show that he had
indeed been confused.
A-0421-19
7
On appeal from a municipal court to the Law Division, the review is de
novo on the record. R. 3:23-8(a)(2). The Law Division judge must make
independent "findings of fact and conclusions of law but defers to the municipal
court's credibility findings." State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138, 147 (2017). Our
assessment of the Law Division judge's factual findings is limited to whether the
conclusions "could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible
evidence present in the record." State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964).
Unlike the Law Division, we do not independently assess the evidence. State v.
Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999). The rule of deference is compelling where,
such as here, the municipal and Law Division judges made concurrent findings.
Id. at 474. "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. (citing Midler v. Heinowitz, 10 N.J. 123, 128-29 (1952)).
"Therefore, appellate review of the factual and credibility findings of the
107 N.J. at 542.
In Sherwin, we held, "[l]ike the [Supreme Court] in Leavitt, we decline to
resolve the issue of whether a defendant may validly invoke the 'confusion
doctrine' in this State because the record here does not support the asserted
claim." 236 N.J. at 518.
A-0421-19
8
municipal court and the Law Division 'is exceedingly narrow.'" State v. Reece,
222 N.J. 154, 167 (2015) (quoting Locurto, 157 N.J. at 470).
Guided by these standards, we are satisfied Law Division Judge David
Ironson thoroughly reviewed the record and properly found that Ondish gave
sufficient credible testimony that he observed defendant driving while she was
intoxicated. Specifically, he testified that he observed defendant driving
erratically: changing lanes without utilizing a blinker, rapidly accelerating from
forty-five miles per hour to sixty-five miles per hour, going over the shoulder
and the marked traffic lines numerous times, and, at least on one occasion,
swerving to avoid striking another vehicle. When he approached her vehicle,
Ondish observed defendant had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of
alcohol was "emanating . . . profusely" from her car. Ondish stated defendant
provided the wrong documents when she produced her driving documentation
and admitted to having consumed at least one shot of Fireball alcohol.
Furthermore, Ondish administered several field sobriety tests, which
defendant could not successfully perform. He testified defendant counted
backwards from ninety-nine to eighty, then skipped to number seventy-five and
then continued to count to seventy, nodding her head and pausing for long
periods of time between numbers. Defendant also could not recite the full
A-0421-19
9
alphabet and was unsuccessful both times she did the one-leg stand test and
during the walk-and-turn test.
Defendant testified that after being instructed by Ondish to recite the
alphabet, she "told him right away" that she can complete the test in German ,
her native language. As for the counting, she stated she told Ondish that she
could do it better in German than in English, but Ondish directed her to do so in
English. Defendant acknowledged understanding Ondish's instructions in
English, but claimed she was "very distressed."
When asked whether defendant "seemed able to understand [him],"
Ondish stated, "yes." When asked whether it was "apparent to [him] that English
was not her first language," Ondish replied, "yes . . . she had an accent."
Thereafter, when asked whether "she ever [said] to [him] that . . . she had
difficulty in English," Ondish stated, "she may have mentioned it."
Judge Ironson, as did the municipal court, found Ondish credible and
defendant not credible regarding her claim that her language barrier negatively
impacted her ability to perform the field sobriety tests. The judge held:
With regard to [defendant]'s contention that her test
performances were impacted by a language barrier, the
[c]ourt finds that the proofs fail to establish same.
During the [m]unicipal [c]ourt [t]rial, when . . . Ondish
was asked whether there were language difficulties
between him and [defendant], he testified that
A-0421-19
10
[defendant] did not request an interpreter, did not
express any difficulty in communicating with him or
understanding English, that he does not recall whether
[defendant] indicated that she could perform these tests
in German, and that he did not know what her first
language was until trial.
Judge Ironson noted defendant did not request an interpreter at the municipal
court trial––the municipal court judge determined that she has "no problem at
all with the English language"––and when he asked her whether she needed the
assistance of an interpreter at the trial de novo, she stated: "I do not need it. No.
Absolutely not." The judge also pointed out that
while largely unsuccessful, [defendant] complied with
. . . Ondish's commands given in English. For example,
when asked to produce documentation, [defendant]
attempted to do so. When asked to perform tests,
[defendant] attempted to do so. [Defendant] also
acknowledged understanding . . . Ondish's instructions
in English, but claimed she was "very distressed."
In sum, the judge agreed with the municipal court that "[defendant]'s testimony
[was not] credible, dismissing it as 'self-serving' and not 'ring[ing] true.'"
We conclude the record supports Judge Ironson's credibility findings that
there was no language barrier to defendant's ability to follow Ondish's
instructions regarding the administration of the field sobriety tests and Ondish's
observations of defendant's failed performance of the tests. Thus, the State
provided sufficient evidence that defendant was guilty of DWI.
A-0421-19
11
To the extent we have not addressed any of defendant's arguments, it is
because we have concluded they are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-0421-19
12