WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 1931

Increases penalty for reckless vehicular homicide committed when driving while intoxicated under certain circumstances.

2026-2027 Regular Session Introduced by Tony Bucco and 7 co-sponsors

The bill upgrades reckless vehicular homicide to a first-degree crime or mandatory minimum penalties when intoxicated driving occurs near schools or construction zones and imposes

Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Law and Public Safety Committee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 1931

Summary of Bill S 1931 (Session 222) – New Jersey

Purpose and Intent

  • This bill tightens penalties for reckless vehicular homicide when the driver is intoxicated and the incident occurs in specific high-risk roadway areas.
  • It expands the set of circumstances that trigger a first-degree penalty, aligning punishment with the enhanced danger posed in highway construction zones and designated safe corridors.

Key Provisions and Changes

  • Baseline offense: Reckless vehicular homicide remains a crime related to criminal homicide caused by driving a vehicle or vessel recklessly. The bill preserves existing inference provisions relating to sleep, intoxication, phone use, and lane maintenance as indicators of recklessness.

  • Penalties (subsection b, revised):

    • The default offense remains a second-degree crime for reckless vehicular homicide.
    • First-degree upgrade triggers (newly added):
    • If the defendant was operating a vehicle or vessel while intoxicated (or with a prohibited blood alcohol concentration), or while license privileges were suspended/revoked for related offenses, the court must impose a term of imprisonment with a mandatory minimum.
    • The mandatory minimum is set at the lesser of:
      • one-third to one-half of the sentence actually imposed, or
      • three years, whichever is greater, and the defendant is ineligible for parole for that minimum term.
    • Hearing requirement: A mandatory sentence under the above clause cannot be imposed without a hearing. At the hearing (which may occur at sentencing), the prosecutor must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the intoxication or license suspension/revocation facts. The court will take judicial notice of prior proceedings and consider the presentence report.
    • First-degree upgrade (subsection b(3)): Reckless vehicular homicide becomes a first-degree crime if the defendant was intoxicated (or similarly impaired) and:
    • (a) Was on school property used for school purposes, owned or leased by a school or school board, or within 1,000 feet of such property; or
    • (b) Was driving through a school crossing designated by local ordinance/resolution; or
    • (c) Was driving through a school crossing with juveniles present (if the crossing is not designated as such); or
    • (d) Was driving through an area of highway construction or repair or a “safe corridor.”
    • A map showing school property boundaries may be used in prosecutions under (a).
    • It is not a defense to charges under (a), (b), or (d) that the driver was unaware of school proximity, that juveniles were present, or that the school was not in session.
    • It is not a defense under (a) or (b) that no juveniles were present, or that the driver did not know the crossing status.
    • The same conduct in (a)-(d) can support a first-degree conviction even if the driver otherwise contends they did not commit reckless driving beyond those factors.
    • (4) If intoxicated, license suspension effects include a license suspension period of 5 years to life, commencing after any prison sentence is served.
    • (5) Reckless vehicular homicide is a third-degree crime if the defendant proves by a preponderance that they did not commit any conduct constituting reckless driving other than failing to maintain a lane.

  • Forfeiture (subsection e):

    • A person who violates the intoxication or related license suspension provisions (subsection b(3)) must forfeit the auto or vessel used, unless they prove at a hearing that forfeiture would constitute a serious hardship to the family outweighing deterrence.
    • Forfeiture is in addition to possible civil forfeiture.

  • Effective date: The act takes effect immediately upon enactment.

Who Is Affected

  • Individuals charged with reckless vehicular homicide, specifically where intoxication or license issues are present.
  • Drivers operating in or near school zones, school crossings (including designated and certain non-designated crossings), and highway construction or repair zones or safe corridors.
  • Defendants facing potential mandatory minimums and enhanced penalties, including possible vehicle forfeiture.
  • Recipients of related court proceedings, including the need for hearings to establish intoxication/licensing factors.

Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Mandatory minimum sentences for certain intoxication/licensing scenarios require a hearing before imposition, with the prosecutor carrying the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
  • Courts must consider the presentence report and related information when determining findings.
  • The bill specifies the use of maps and official designations (e.g., school zones, construction areas, safe corridors) in prosecutorial and evidentiary contexts.
  • Immediate effectiveness means the provisions apply as soon as enacted.

Potential Impacts

  • Increased penalties for intoxicated reckless driving in sensitive zones (schools, construction sites, safe corridors).
  • Stronger deterrence through mandatory minimums and enhanced sentencing where intoxication and proximity to schools or construction zones are present.
  • Possible rise in vehicle forfeiture actions accompanying criminal prosecutions.
  • Greater prosecutorial and judicial focus on proven intoxication/licensing violations at sentencing.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.