The Appellate Division concluded with the following in relevant part: A defendant’s “slurred speech, loud and abrasive behavior, disheveled appearance, red and bloodshot eyes and strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath are sufficient to sustain a conviction for DWI.” See State v. Cryan. We have carefully reviewed the record, and conclude that there is “sufficient credible evidence” to support defendant’s conviction of a DWI violation under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Locurto (1999) (noting the limited standard of appellate review of factual findings).
We recognize that each of the factors indicating defendant’s intoxication, identified by Officer Knepper and relied upon in the Law Division, may singularly be insufficient. However, we are satisfied that those numerous factors, when considered in combination, are more than ample to support the conclusion that defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol when he flipped over his automobile while driving on a roadway that the police officer emphatically described as dry and without precipitation.
Lastly, we reject defendant’s argument that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor’s failure to supply him with discovery. The discovery sought was almost entirely aimed at the laboratory analyses of defendant’s blood, which we have excluded from our substantive consideration as the result of our Sixth Amendment holdings. A dismissal of defendant’s DWI charges is not warranted in these circumstances. See State v. Clark (noting that the remedy of dismissal for discovery violations requires either “intention inconsistent with fair play” or “egregious carelessness or prosecutorial excess tantamount to suppression”). We also recognize the deference to be accorded to trial judges on such discovery matters. See State v. Scherzer.
We therefore affirm defendant’s conviction. The stay of his sentence is hereby lifted, effective within fourteen days of the issuance of this opinion.
It would be interesting to know what discovery unrelated to the laboratory analysis was suppressed by the prosecution. The Court held that it was “almost” entirely aimed at the laboratory analyses.
