STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BOJANA DOBROVIC

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BOJANA DOBROVIC,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

September 2, 2014

Before Judges Simonelli and O'Connor.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Municipal Appeal No. 001-37-13.

Robert A. Skoblar, attorney for appellant.

John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Elizabeth R. Rebein, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Following a trial de novo in the Law Division, defendant Bojana Dobrovic was convicted of careless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97. We affirm.

We derive the following facts from the record. At the commencement of the trial before the municipal court, the judge afforded defendant an opportunity to retain counsel and warned her about the dangers of proceeding pro se. Defendant nonetheless knowingly and intelligently waived her right to counsel.

Testimony revealed that on the morning of February 11, 2013, defendant was driving her grandson to Bergen Catholic High School, as she had done since the beginning of the school year in September 2012. Defendant was proceeding westbound on Oradell Avenue toward the driveway entrance to the high school's parking lot. At this area of the roadway, Oradell Avenue is technically one lane but wide enough for two vehicles to be side-by side; however, vehicles were to maintain their travel to the right side. There is an increase of traffic in this area in the morning due to students and staff coming to the high school. A Bergen County Police Officer directs traffic near the driveway entrance.

Defendant admitted she was aware of the heavy morning traffic pattern near the high school and "even wrote a letter to [the high school] principal" requesting "eas[ing]" entry into the driveway. She also admitted she was late getting her grandson to school on February 11, 2013. She claimed that as she approached the high school, there were approximately ten vehicles on the right side that were parked with no directional signals, and the Bergen County Police Officer was not directing traffic. She also claimed that she switched to the left lane, turned on her right turn signal, moved to the front of the line, proceeded to turn right into the driveway, and the driver of the first vehicle in line proceeded forward and struck her vehicle.

Police Officer Michael Bartlett from the Oradell Police Department, a certified accident reconstructionist, testified that at 7:46 a.m. on February 11, 2013, he responded to the scene of the accident and saw several vehicles on the right side of the road that were occupied and running. Following his investigation, he issued a report, to which defendant stipulated,1 that stated as follows:

Both [defendant's vehicle] and [the other vehicle] were starting from being stopped in traffic. There was a Bergen County Police Officer directing traffic in front of the entrance for the Bergen Catholic High School parking lot. When the Officer waved west bound traffic on, [defendant's vehicle] made a quick right turn and accelerated trying to enter the school parking lot in front of [the other vehicle]. [The other vehicle] struck [defendant's vehicle. [Defendant] did not signal or indicate any intention to turn before doing so.

Officer Bartlett testified that he based his report on his investigation, analysis, and "discussions with individuals" at the scene. He did not reveal the content of those discussions on direct examination. Based on his investigation, he concluded that: defendant was traveling westbound on Oradell Avenue on the left side of the roadway; there was a car to defendant's right that had the right of-way; both cars were stopped and then proceeded forward; and defendant made a right turn in front of the other car in order to enter the driveway, causing the accident. On cross-examination, defendant elicited the content of Officer Bartlett's discussions with the driver whose vehicle struck her vehicle and the Bergen County Police Officer.

The municipal court judge found defendant guilty of careless driving and imposed a $100 fine, a $6 assessment, and $33 for costs. Defendant appealed to the Law Division. The Law Division judge determined that defendant understood she had a right to counsel but chose to proceed pro se, and she elicited hearsay evidence to which she was bound. The judge also made the following findings: there was a line of vehicles occupied by drivers along the right curb in an active line of traffic; those vehicles had the right-of-way; defendant drove around the vehicles and attempted to turn right from the left side in front of the vehicle that struck her vehicle; and defendant was "thinking about getting her grandson to school in a timely manner, cut in front of the other cars, and caused the accident." The judge found defendant guilty of careless driving and imposed the same sentence the municipal court judge imposed. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant contends that the State's failure to call the Bergen County Police Officer or the other driver of the vehicle that struck her vehicle to testify violated her right to due process and confrontation. This contention lacks merit.

On appeal from a municipal court to the Law Division, the review is de novo on the record. R. 3:23-8(a). The Law Division judge must make independent findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the evidentiary record of the municipal court and must give due regard to the opportunity of the municipal court judge to assess the witnesses' credibility. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 157 (1964). On appeal from a Law Division decision, the issue is whether there is "sufficient credible evidence present in the record" to uphold the findings of the Law Division not the municipal court. Id.at 162. However, as in the Law Division, we are not in as good of a position as the municipal court judge to determine credibility and should, therefore, refrain from making new credibility findings. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999). "We do not weigh the evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or make conclusions about the evidence." State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599, 615 (1997). We give due regard to the trial court's credibility findings. State v. Cerefice, 335 N.J. Super. 374, 383 (App. Div. 2000).

A person is guilty of careless driving if he or she "drives a vehicle carelessly, or without due caution and circumspection, in a manner so as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, a person or property." N.J.S.A. 39:4-97. We are satisfied that there was more than ample evidence to support the Law Division judge's findings and conclusion that defendant was guilty of careless driving beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant stipulated to the admission of Officer Bartlett's report. Litigants are generally held to their stipulations and the consequences thereof. Negrotti v. Negrotti, 98 N.J. 428, 432-33 (1985). The report established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant drove her vehicle carelessly and caused the accident.

In addition, there is evidence that defendant was aware of the heavy morning traffic pattern near the high school, she was late getting her grandson to school, she pulled out from behind a long line of vehicles in order to get to the front of the line, those vehicles had the right-of-way, and she turned right, causing the accident. This evidence also established beyond a

reasonable doubt that defendant drove her vehicle carelessly and caused the accident.

Affirmed.

1 Officer Bartlett's report was admitted into evidence as a joint exhibit.