NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4685-15T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOHN H. CROSS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________
Submitted September 13, 2017 – Decided September 29, 2017
Before Judges Koblitz and Manahan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Bergen County, Municipal Appeal
No. 6075.
John R. Klotz, attorney for appellant.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Bergen County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Michael R. Philips,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant John H. Cross appeals from an order entered in the
Law Division finding him guilty of refusal, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2,
after a de novo hearing. On appeal, defendant raises the following
contentions:
POINT I
THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE MOTOR VEHICLE STOP
OF [DEFENDANT] SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE
COURTS BELOW.
POINT II
THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT [] DEFENDANT KNOWINGLY REFUSED TO
SUBMIT A BREATH SAMPLE.
[A.] THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THAT
[DEFENDANT] REFUSED TO CONSENT.
[B.] THE CONFUSION DEFENSE APPLIES
AND WAS SATISFIED.
[C.] THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE
TROOPER HAD PROBABLE CAUSE THAT []
DEFENDANT OPERATED A MOTOR VEHICLE
UNDER THE INFLUENCE [OF] ALCOHOL.
POINT III
THE AIR WAS INADMISSIBLE.1
In a comprehensive, well-reasoned written opinion, Judge
Edward Jerejian found defendant guilty after rejecting these
arguments. In sum, the judge noted the municipal court judge
found the trooper was credible regarding the basis for the stop
(a BOLO and her own observations of erratic driving by defendant),2
which provided her with a reasonable articulable suspicion to stop
1
AIR is an acronym used for "Alcohol Influence Report."
2
BOLO is an acronym used for "Be on the lookout."
2 A-4685-15T1
the vehicle. The judge further held that there was sufficient
proof that defendant failed to submit to the Alcotest after being
properly advised of the requirement to submit and the State had
established the elements of refusal.
Regarding the confusion defense, the judge noted that
defendant neither raised it before the municipal court judge nor
provided any proofs that would sustain that defense. Finally, in
reaching his de novo finding of defendant's guilt, the judge did
not consider in evidence the printout from the Alcotest as proof
of refusal.
Having considered the record on appeal, and in light of our
standard of review, we determine that the arguments raised by
defendant, the same arguments he raised before the Law Division,
are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm substantially for the reasons
stated by Judge Jerejian.
Affirmed.
3 A-4685-15T1