In State v. Driscoll, A-5842-08, after hearing testimony from Patricia Driscoll's treating neurologist that the defendant driver's erratic driving on the night of her arrest was the result of Lyme disease, fatigue and a condition called presyncope, Superior Court Judge Robert Gardner held the defendant cannot sustain the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the defense offered. The stated conditions result in dizziness, disorientation, loss of balance and mild cognitive dysfunction. The Appellate Division rightfully found that it is not the defendant's burden to prove his/her defense beyond a reasonable doubt but the State (Prosecutor's) burden to establish each element of the charge/statute, against the defendant/driver, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Further, the Court rejected the state's request for a limited remand on the theory that the Judge merely spoke imprecisely. The Court stated, ..if we remand to the fact-finder (Judge) for clarification, we would be inviting the court to make a finding inconsistent with its stated finding of reasonable doubt.
Our View:
This firm's argument in such a case is concrete and straight forward---- Presentation of such medical evidence is probative on the issue of erratic or careless driving, common law observation of intoxication, and the basis for the police officer's stop of the vehicle. A reasonable judge (or juror) could rationally conclude that the cause of the erratic driving was medical and cognitive rather than the result of intoxication. The burden of proof always resides with the State. The Court may not ever shift the burden of proof in a criminal matter, or DWI matter, to the defendant to prove his innocence (or absence of guilt/or defense) beyond a reasonable doubt. If any doubt, which is a reasonable doubt, exists in the mind of the fact-finder—whether judge or jury—on any element of the crime or statute charged—dismissal of the charges is required.
