Case Name: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANK M. SWEENEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1963-07-01
Citations: 40 N.J. 359
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANK M. SWEENEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 359–367

Head Matter:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. FRANK M. SWEENEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued June 4, 1963
Decided July 1, 1963.
Mr. James V. Segreto argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Messrs. Segreto & Segreto, attorneys; Mr. James V. Segreto, of counsel and on the brief).
Mr. Archibald Kreiger, Passaic Assistant County Prosecutor, argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent (Mr. John 0. Thevos, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Kreiger, of counsel).

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered
Per Curiam.
We read the opinion of the Appellate Division, 77 N. J. Super. 512 (1962), to hold that a person "oper ates" — or for that matter, "drives" — a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, •within the meaning of N. J. S. A. 39:4r-50 and 39 :<U-50.1, when, in that condition, he enters a stationary vehicle, on a public highway or in a place devoted to public use, turns on the ignition, starts and maintains the motor in operation and remains in the driver's seat behind the steering wheel, with the intent to move the vehicle, and that in this case the trial court could clearly infer such intent from the evidence. We thoroughly agree and therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.