Supreme Court Opinions

Pursuant to the facts of this case, a reasonable 17-year-old in defendant’s position would have believed he was in custody and not free to leave, so Miranda warnings were required. It was harmful error to admit his statement at trial.

The limiting principles established in the Court’s precedent warrant the adoption of the ongoing storm rule. Commercial landowners do not have a duty to remove the accumulation of snow and ice until the conclusion of the storm, but unusual circumstances may give rise to a duty before then. There are two exceptions that could impose a duty: if the owner’s conduct increases the risk, or the danger is pre-existing.

*The Attorney General had the authority to issue the Directives, which satisfy the deferential standard of review for final agency decisions. The Directives are designed to enhance public trust and confidence in law enforcement, to deter misconduct, to improve transparency and accountability in the disciplinary process, and to identify repeat offenders who may try to move from one sensitive position to another. In short, the Directives are consistent with legislative policies and rest on a reasonable basis.

Trial courts may conduct voir dire questioning about a prospective juror’s views on disputed issues to determine whether the juror will follow the court’s instructions and deliberate with an open mind. The trial court must ensure, however, that such questioning is not partisan and that it will not indoctrinate prospective jurors in favor of either side’s position. The court must present the issue to prospective jurors in balanced and impartial terms. In this case, the questioning addressed only the component of the legal standard that assisted the State; it did not equitably present the evidentiary issue to the prospective jurors. The responses of some of the prospective jurors indicate that the inquiry may have confused them. The form of the questioning strongly favored the State’s position and may have encouraged jurors to convict defendant. Accordingly, defendant was not afforded his right to an impartial jury and is entitled to a new trial.

Because it is unclear whether defendants’ motion for summary judgment was decided based on the CEPA provision on which plaintiff relies, the Court remands plaintiff’s claim regarding the Capehart & Scatchard proposal to the trial court. As a matter of law, plaintiff presented no prima facie evidence of a causal nexus between her comments on the retention of Ballard Spahr and the County’s decision not to renew her contract. The Court reinstates the order granting summary judgment as to that claim.

An explicit statement, explaining the overall fairness of a sentence imposed for multiple offenses in a single proceeding or in multiple sentencing proceedings, is essential to a proper Yarbough sentencing assessment and was lacking here. The lack of any overall assessment of the fairness of the decision to impose consecutive sentences compels reversal of defendant’s sentence and remand for a new resentencing, and the Court provides important guidance regarding that essential assessment.

The trial court correctly admitted A.B.’s statement identifying defendant as her shooter as a dying declaration under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(2), and the admission of A.B.’s statement as a dying declaration does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution.

Plaintiffs sufficiently pled the class certification requirements to survive a motion to dismiss. The Court remands the matter for class action discovery to be conducted pursuant to Rule 4:32-2(a) so that the trial court may determine whether to certify the class.

The Court has the constitutional authority to make rules and procedures for all courts of this state, including the grand jury; the Court’s authorization of a virtual format for the selection of grand jurors and grand jury presentations during a lethal pandemic does not violate the State Constitution’s separation of powers. There is no support for the facial constitutional challenge to the temporary use of the virtual grand jury during the current public health crisis, and virtual grand jury proceedings do not facially violate the fundamental fairness doctrine. In individual cases where a defendant claims that an alleged error or defect undermined the fairness of the proceeding, a challenge may be mounted. But in this case, no error undermined the integrity of the grand jury proceeding; nor is there a basis for the dismissal of the indictment.

The disputed coverage provision in the garage policy at issue constitutes an illegal escape clause, which may not be used to evade the minimum liability requirements for dealership vehicles set by the Chief Administrator of the Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC). The Court orders the reformation of Federal’s policy to the $100,000/$250,000 dealer-licensure minimum liability coverage required by N.J.A.C. 13:21-15.2(l).

The Court affirms as to defendants’ respective manslaughter convictions but reverses as to their convictions for endangerment.

M&K does not fit within the Compassionate Use Act’s limited reimbursement exception, and Hager presented sufficient credible evidence to the compensation court to establish that the prescribed medical marijuana represents, as to him, reasonable and necessary treatment under the WCA. Finally, the Court interprets Congress’s appropriations actions of recent years as suspending application of the CSA to conduct that complies with the Compassionate Use Act. As applied to the Order, the Court thus finds that the Act is not preempted and that M&K does not face a credible threat of federal criminal aiding-and-abetting or conspiracy liability. M&K is ordered to reimburse costs for, and reasonably related to, Hager’s prescribed medical marijuana.

The CJRA favors pretrial release over detention; it authorizes judges to detain defendants when the State has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the eligible defendant’s appearance in court when required, would protect the public, or would prevent the defendant from obstructing the criminal justice process. To make that determination, the Act directs judges to conduct an individualized assessment of the level of risk each defendant presents in light of their own conduct, history, and characteristics. The Act does not seek to detain defendants whose behavior poses a minimal level of risk, which describes all three defendants here. Nor does the CJRA cede control over pretrial release decisions to outside agencies. The statute’s primary focus is on a defendant’s behavior and choices, and the risk they present. The language, structure, purpose, and history of the CJRA reveal the Act was designed to address a defendant’s own choice not to appear in court, not independent actions by third parties like ICE. The Court agrees with the Appellate Division that the CJRA does not authorize judges to detain defendants to thwart their possible removal by ICE.

The CJRA favors pretrial release over detention; it authorizes judges to detain defendants when the State has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the eligible defendant’s appearance in court when required, would protect the public, or would prevent the defendant from obstructing the criminal justice process. To make that determination, the Act directs judges to conduct an individualized assessment of the level of risk each defendant presents in light of their own conduct, history, and characteristics. The Act does not seek to detain defendants whose behavior poses a minimal level of risk, which describes all three defendants here. Nor does the CJRA cede control over pretrial release decisions to outside agencies. The statute’s primary focus is on a defendant’s behavior and choices, and the risk they present. The language, structure, purpose, and history of the CJRA reveal the Act was designed to address a defendant’s own choice not to appear in court, not independent actions by third parties like ICE. The Court agrees with the Appellate Division that the CJRA does not authorize judges to detain defendants to thwart their possible removal by ICE.

The Court affirms settled principles of law that require trial judges to conduct a “reasoned, thoughtful analysis” of certain factors when they consider a request for an adjournment to hire new counsel. See State v. Kates, 216 N.J. 393, 396-97 (2014); State v. Furguson, 198 N.J. Super. 395, 402 (App. Div. 1985). If a trial judge does not conduct the proper analysis, it may be necessary to reverse a conviction. But defendants are not automatically entitled to a new trial. When a reviewing court can glean or infer the relevant considerations from the record, it may evaluate the appropriate factors. The Court does not find an actual deprivation of the right to counsel of choice here, so the doctrine of structural error does not apply.

The Court finds no error, let alone plain error, in the trial court’s omission of a theft charge. Nothing in Dunbrack’s version of the events “jumps off the page” as indicative of theft. Neither Dunbrack nor Rodriguez requested an instruction on theft, and the trial court was not required to scour the record for a combination of facts to justify giving such a lesser included jury charge.

Pretrial detention is not an absolute bar to receiving unemployment compensation benefits for the time following dismissal of the charges and release from detention. Based on the specific facts presented by this appeal, the UCL and N.J.A.C. 12:17-9.1(e)(10) required the Department to review the totality of the circumstances surrounding Haley’s detention and release to determine whether he “left work voluntarily.” That review did not occur here.

Because the trial court quizzed defendant on his knowledge of substantive law rather than provide the information required by New Jersey case law to confirm he was making a knowing and voluntary waiver of counsel, the denial of defendant’s request to represent himself was an abuse of discretion.

The plain language of N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.30(b) requires the State to produce psychiatric testimony in support of commitment when the State seeks the initial or continued commitment of a sexually violent predator. The State therefore did not meet its burden in this case by producing a psychiatrist who did not support commitment.

The trial court erroneously kept admissible evidence from the jury. The video rebutted what the prosecutor implied during cross-examination -- that defendant’s witnesses lied about their attempt to speak with the police at the scene. That video also contradicted the investigating detective’s testimony that she had thoroughly canvassed the area for witnesses. In summation, the prosecutor exploited the suppression of the video to present a false narrative and improperly suggested to the jury that the defense witnesses made no effort to give their accounts to the officers at the scene. The combination of the trial court’s erroneous evidentiary ruling and the prosecutor’s inappropriate remarks during summation had the clear capacity to cause an unjust result.