Hindering his own apprehension affirmed State v. Shabaan A-0559-21
Defendant appealed his convictions for hindering his own apprehension by providing a false name to law enforcement and driving with a revoked or suspended license. During trial, defendant and his wife testified that she was the driver and defendant was in the rear of the minivan with their children. The arresting officer testified that at precinct headquarters, defendant broke down and admitted he was the driver. Municipal court found the testifying police officer more credible than defendant and his wife and thus found defendant guilty on the charges of hindering apprehension and driving under a suspended license. Defendant appealed, and trial de novo was conducted on a review of the municipal court record. Trial court rejected defendant's assertions that municipal court erred by: failing to conduct a hearing on the admissibility of his statement at the police headquarters; crediting the officer's testimony; and permitting testimony regarding a records abstract showing the names that dispatch had run through the NCIC database. Trial court concluded defendant's statement admitting he was the driver would be admissible as a statement against interest and was voluntary rather than the result of interrogation. Ultimately, however, trial court did not consider defendant's statement in determining guilt on the charges alleged. Trial court further deemed the records abstract and the NCIC information it reflected were admissible as business records and public records. Finally, trial court independently credited the officer's testimony and deemed defendant's testimony, and that of his wife, to be self-serving and not credible. Trial court imposed same fine, costs, and assessments imposed by municipal court. Defendant appealed. Court affirmed. Court rejected defendant's challenges as lacking sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. Court affirmed for substantially the reasons set forth by trial court, noting that trial court did not consider defendant's police headquarters statement in its determination, the disputed abstract and NCIC information were not admitted into evidence, and trial court's factual and credibility findings were supported by the record.
source NJLJ July 31, 2023
