Defense attorney could not waive defendant attendance at suppression motion
State v. Hogges
Daily Briefing
December 02, 2022 at 12:00 AM DOCKET Practice Area: Criminal Law Date filed: 2022-12-02 Court: Appellate Division Judge: Judge DeAlmeida Case Number: A-1666-19
Defendant appealed his judgment of conviction arising from a motor vehicle accident that resulted in serious bodily injury, and from his aggregate sentence of 23 years imprisonment. While intoxicated, defendant ran a red light and crashed into another vehicle. After the crash, defendant exited his vehicle, walked past the other vehicle without rendering assistance to the seriously injured driver, and left the scene. A passing motorist reported the accident to police, who soon after found defendant walking away from the scene of the crash with a limp. Officers found defendant bleeding, agitated, and unresponsive to police commands. When defendant failed to comply with the officer's order to get to the ground, the officer resorted to yelling and profanity to get defendant to comply. The officer's body camera footage also recorded the officer asking defendant "what happened?" Defendant replied that the other driver had run the red light. The officer also expressly told defendant that he was under arrest for DWI, smelling the odor of alcohol from defendant but unable to perform field sobriety tests due to his injury. While being transported to the hospital, another officer asked defendant if he had been drinking, to which defendant responded "no." Defendant also admitted that he was at a restaurant "having a good time" prior to the crash. At the hospital, defendant refused to submit to blood alcohol testing. Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress his statements to the officers, arguing that he was in custody from the time he was ordered to the ground and that the officers failed to advise him of his Miranda rights. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court reversed the denial of defendant's suppression motion and vacated his conviction. The court noted that defendant was not present at the motion hearing, and held that defense counsel did not clearly have authority to waive defendant's right to be present.
