Published Appellate Court Opinions

This case probes the boundaries of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), which held that under the Sixth Amendment, "[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 490. In this case, defendant's original sentence to special probation was revoked for a series of violations. He was resentenced on his second-degree robbery conviction to the statutory maximum ten-year sentence after already serving roughly four years of special probation. He was given credit towards his prison sentence for the time spent in county jail and in residential treatment but not for the time he participated in outpatient treatment.

Defendant claims his prison sentence violates Apprendi because the combination of the ten-year prison term and time previously spent on special probation exceeds the ten-year maximum sentence for a second-degree conviction. In State v. Hawkins, __ N.J. Super. __ (App. Div.), certif. denied, __ N.J. __ (2019), the court rejected the argument that under Apprendi, a year on special probation undergoing outpatient treatment counts as a year in prison. However, the court in Hawkins affirmed the defendant's eight-year prison sentence on his second-degree conviction “without ruling directly on . . . whether imposition of the maximum custodial sentence plus special probation would be constitutionally defective.” __ N.J. Super. at __ (slip op. at 12).

The court in the present case addresses that issue and holds that such a sentence, which was actually imposed in this instance, does not violate the Sixth Amendment. The court embraces the reasoning in Hawkins and concludes that time on special probation outside a residential treatment facility cannot be combined with a prison term when determining whether a sentence exceeds the "prescribed statutory maximum." The court finds further support for that conclusion in the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncement in the line of Apprendi cases, United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019). Based on an analysis of Haymond and other precedents, the court holds that the Sixth Amendment issues raised in Apprendi and its progeny apply only to minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment; Apprendi principles simply do not apply to non-custodial forms of punishment such as special probation.

A general contractor hired a subcontractor to design and construct a renewable solar generating facility on the campus of the Mercer County Community College. The Mercer County Improvement Authority issued bonds in excess of $29,000,000 to fund the project. The subcontractor filed a mechanics' lien notice against the Authority when it was unable to resolve a payment dispute with the general contractor. The subcontractor settled its claim against the general contractor and filed a complaint against the Authority to foreclose on its mechanic's lien.

The Law Division granted the Authority's motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e). The trial court held that pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:37A-127, all of the Authority's property was exempt from judicial process.

In this appeal, the subcontractor argues it's municipal mechanic's lien is enforceable against the Authority's project fund pursuant to the Municipal Mechanics' Lien Law, N.J.S.A. 2A:44-125 to -142. Amicus curiae Utility and Transportation Contractors Association of New Jersey, Inc. supports the subcontractor's legal position. The Authority argues the subcontractor's mechanic's lien is not valid under the County Improvement Authorities Law, N.J.S.A. 40:37A-44 to -135.

This court affirms the Law Division's order dismissing the foreclosure complaint as a matter of law under Rule 4:6-2(e), but for reasons other than those expressed by the trial court. Hayes v. Delamotte, 231 N.J. 373, 387 (2018). As a matter of first impression in a published opinion, this court holds that the Municipal Mechanics' Lien Law does not apply to county improvement authorities.

The court holds that New Jersey's Constitution should be construed consistent with the federal Constitution in that a "class-of-one" equal protection claim cannot be asserted by a public employee. See Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 594 (2008). Accordingly, the court affirms the dismissal of plaintiff's constitutional equal protection claim. The court also affirms the dismissal of plaintiff's claims under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1 to -14, because those claims were precluded when he asserted retaliation as a defense in the administrative proceedings upholding his termination as a municipal police officer. Therefore, plaintiff cannot relitigate the retaliation issue in a CEPA action. See Winters v. N. Hudson Reg'l Fire & Rescue, 212 N.J. 67 (2012).

These consolidated appeals present an issue of first impression, requiring the court to decide whether the State's utilization of federally-contracted civilian monitors, who were sworn as "Special County Investigators," violated the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -37. Unlike Title III of the federal Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523, New Jersey's Wiretap Act does not expressly permit delegation of wire interception to civilian personnel.

Because the Prosecutor exercised his inherent power to appoint personnel as part of his responsibility to carry out the duties of his office here, the court concludes the monitors were cloaked with the investigative responsibility of law enforcement officers when they intercepted the communications at issue. Accordingly, the court discerns no violation of the Wiretap Act, and affirms the Law Division order that denied defendants' motion to suppress the intercepted communications and the evidence seized as a result of those communications.

Criminal defense counsel who represented a State witness who was questioned in the investigation of a murder may not then represent the defendant in the same case. On leave granted, the State argues that because defense counsel was present for the witness's interview with detectives, she will be hampered in her ability to effectively cross-examine the witness at trial, materially limiting her ability to represent defendant Lucian Faulcon. The anticipated testimony of the witness involves his identification of a phone number that the police connected to defendant and used to trace defendant's whereabouts at the time of the murder. Defense counsel's former representation of the witness materially limit's counsel's ability to represent defendant. To allow this conflicted representation is contrary to the fair administration of justice.

The court affirms a decision by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development's Board of Review (Board) that disqualified petitioner from unemployment benefits. Petitioner was arrested on multiple charges and incarcerated for fifty-five days. While he was in jail, his employer filled his position. The grand jury did not indict petitioner. He was released from jail and the charges were dismissed. He unsuccessfully filed for unemployment compensation benefits after his release. The court agrees petitioner is disqualified from benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -24.30. It is consistent with the Act's amendment in 1961 to review petitioner's incarceration as a voluntary separation that is "without good cause attributable to such work . . . ." N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). Because his loss of employment was not related to his work, petitioner was disqualified from benefits.

The court granted leave to appeal to review an order entered in this matrimonial action that denied plaintiff the opportunity to appear at the trial and testify by contemporaneous video transmission from his home in India. Recognizing that the court rules neither authorize nor prohibit such relief, the court identified and described the factors a judge should consider in ruling on the propriety of allowing a witness to testify remotely, and remanded so that plaintiff may provide the trial judge with a more fulsome application for the relief he requested.

Following the stop of defendant's car for allegedly violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 because the license plate frame on the car's rear license plate "conceal[ed] or otherwise obscure[d]" the words "Garden State" at the bottom of the license plate, a warrantless search of the car uncovered an unloaded handgun. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the search and seizure of the handgun, and defendant subsequently pled guilty to second-degree certain persons not to possess a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1).

In defendant's appeal, the court was asked to decide: (1) whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car for violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-33; and (2) whether the subsequent search and seizure of the handgun was legally permissible.

Based upon the common understanding of the words "conceal" and "obscure," this court concludes there was no reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car for violating N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 where the minimal covering of "Garden State" did not make the words indecipherable. Hence, the seized gun was inadmissible to prove a second-degree certain persons offense.

For the sake of completeness, the court further decides that even if there was reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's car for a N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 violation, the subsequent search was not legally permissible because it did not satisfy the State's proffered exceptions to conduct a warrantless search of an automobile, i.e., a search incident to arrest, or a protective sweep.

Accordingly, the court reverses and vacates the conviction for second-degree certain persons not to possess weapons, and remands so defendant can move to vacate his guilty plea and have the judgment of conviction vacated pursuant to Rule 3:9-3(f).

In this special civil part action, defendant Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed an answer but did not plead any affirmative defenses and never moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction prior to trial. Despite SEPTA's waiver of the defense, the trial judge raised it on his own at the trial's outset, and, after hearing brief argument, dismissed the claim against SEPTA for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In reversing the dismissal of the claim against SEPTA and remanding for a trial on the merits, the court concluded that once the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived, a judge is not empowered to resurrect it.

In this case of first impression, the court considers whether a workers' compensation judge can order an employer to reimburse its employee for the employee's use of medical marijuana prescribed for chronic pain following a work-related accident.

Because the court concludes the order does not require M&K to possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana, but only to reimburse petitioner for his purchase of medical marijuana, the court discerns no conflict between the federal Controlled Substance Act, (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 841, which makes it a crime to manufacture, possess or distribute marijuana, and the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (MMA), N.J.S.A. 24:6I-1 to -29.

Furthermore, M&K's compliance with the order does not establish the specific intent element of an aiding and abetting offense under federal law. The court also concludes M&K is not a private health insurer. Therefore, it is not excluded under the MMA from reimbursing the costs of medical marijuana.

Here, where petitioner has demonstrated the severity and chronic nature of his pain, his attempts to unsuccessfully alleviate the pain with multiple surgeries and medical modalities, and the validated efficacy of the prescribed medical marijuana, the court finds the use of medical marijuana is reasonable and necessary. Finding no legislative or legal barrier to an employer's reimbursement of its employee's expense for medical marijuana in a workers' compensation setting, the court affirms the order.

After the court's affirmance of an abuse/neglect determination, defendant – with new appellate counsel – moved for reconsideration, claiming: (1) the court did not adequately review the record as evidenced by its short, three-paragraph opinion, and (2) the court ought to reopen the record so defendant may now assert arguments that prior appellate counsel was ineffective.

In finding no merit in the first contention, the court rejected defendant's theory that suggested the size of an appellate opinion reflects the time and effort expended by the court in considering the record and the issues. The court found that the second argument presented a novel question as to how a defendant in an abuse/neglect matter should pursue a claim of ineffectiveness of appellate counsel. The court determined that a reconsideration motion in the appellate court is not an inappropriate method but – because Rule 2:6-11(a) provides only a ten-day window for seeking such relief – the appellate ineffectiveness argument could also be pursued by way of a Rule 4:50 application in the trial court. Because the ineffectiveness arguments posed here warranted further factual development, the court remanded the matter to the trial court.

The court rejects defendant's argument that the imposition of an eight-year custodial sentence after serving almost five years of special probation was an unconstitutional judicial extension of the statutory ten-year maximum custodial sentence, contrary to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2004). Years served on special Drug Court probation are not equivalent to incarceration. Special Drug Court probation is an extraordinary rehabilitative opportunity, provided to defendants who choose to accept it with the clear explanation that a violation could result in the imposition of the maximum term of incarceration.

The court considered whether it was proper pre-trial for the trial court to review in camera a statement taken by defendant's investigator of a State's witness and redact inculpatory portions. Defendant requested this procedure as he only wanted to use the portions of the statement that were favorable to him. The State was only provided with the redacted statement.

The court concluded the process employed by the trial court was contrary to the intent established under Rule 3:13-3 and State v. Williams, 80 N.J. 472 (1979). The panel stated if a defendant wishes to use a statement or information taken from a State's witness, he or she must decide prior to trial, advise the State, and produce the statement.

Redaction of the statement prior to disclosure is only appropriate for any asserted work product privileged information. If defendant refuses to declare his or her intentions prior to trial regarding a statement, a trial court must consider the appropriate remedy under Rule 3:13-3(f). The procedure employed here deprived the State and its witness of the opportunity to assess the veracity of the statement.

This appeal stems from a pregnancy discrimination suit brought by a female police officer against her employer. Plaintiff contends the employer violated the New Jersey Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ("PWFA"), a statute that has yet to be construed in a published opinion.

The PWFA amended the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, effective January 2014, to explicitly prohibit pregnancy-based discrimination in employment and in other contexts. Among other things, the PWFA obligates employers, subject to an "undue hardship" exception, to provide "reasonable accommodations" in the workplace to pregnant women upon their request, and to not "penalize" such women because of their pregnant status. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(s).

When plaintiff found out she was pregnant, she told her supervisors her doctor recommended she be taken off patrol. She asked to be transferred to a light-duty or less strenuous position within the Police Department. Plaintiff was consequently assigned to non-patrol duty, pursuant to the Department's maternity assignment policy. That policy allows pregnant officers to work a maternity assignment, but on the condition that the officer use up all of her accumulated paid leave time (e.g., vacation, personal, and holiday time) before going on the changed assignment. The maternity assignment policy differs from the Department's policy providing light-duty assignments for nonpregnant injured officers, because only the latter policy gives the Police Chief the authority to waive the loss-of-leave-time condition.

This court vacates the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The Department's maternity assignment policy, as written, unlawfully discriminates against pregnant employees as compared to nonpregnant employees who can seek and obtain a waiver of the loss-of-leave-time condition. Such nonequal treatment violates the PWFA. The court upholds plaintiff's facial challenge to the policy and directs the trial court to grant her requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, leaving other remedial issues to be decided below.

The court vacates summary judgment in the employer's favor with respect to reasonable accommodation issues. There are genuine issues of material fact for a jury to resolve as to the reasonableness of the loss-of-leave-time condition and whether that condition is so harsh as to comprise an impermissible "penalty." The jury also must evaluate the employer's assertions of undue hardship and plaintiff's claims for monetary damages.

This court affirmed the denial of parole to a convicted murderer of a State Trooper. On remand, the full Board questioned Acoli about his rehabilitative efforts and his previous assertion that he was unconscious during the 1973 shooting. The Board found his responses were insincere, rehearsed, shallow, emotionless, contradictory, and implausible. After finding he lacked insight into his criminal behavior, the Board determined there was a substantial likelihood that Acoli would commit another crime if released at this time.

Judge Rothstadt dissented.

A jury convicted defendants, the mother and father of a two-year-old daughter, of reckless manslaughter and aggravated manslaughter respectively, and endangering the welfare of a child. The child died of blunt force head trauma and suffered numerous other internal and external injuries. Both defendants provided statements to law enforcement, but neither admitted causing the child's death, and the State had no eyewitnesses to any assault.

The State contended both defendants could be found guilty as principals or accomplices, and it urged the judge to provide instructions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6(c)(1)(c) (subsection 1(c)). That provides one may be an accomplice of another if "[w]ith the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense . . . [and] [h]aving a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make a proper effort so to do[.]"

Relying on this court's decision in State v. Bass, 221 N.J. Super. 466 (App. Div. 1987), the only reported decision dealing with accomplice liability under subsection 1(c), and at the prosecutor's urging, the judge's jury charge carved out a separate basis for accomplice liability under Bass. The charge failed to tell jurors that in order to find a defendant guilty under subsection 1(c), they must find that defendant's failure to act was accompanied by a purpose to promote or facilitate the other's commission of a crime. The court specifically disapproved of Bass to the extent it implied otherwise, and reversed defendants' convictions.

Petitioner applied to the Workers' Compensation Court for reimbursement of continued prescription opioid medication as part of his need for palliative care to treat a lower back injury suffered while he was working for respondent employer.

The compensation judge declined to compel the employer to pay for petitioner's prescription opioid medication in accordance with N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 of the Workers' Compensation Act. The statute requires employers to provide treatment to injured employees when the treatment is "necessary to cure and relieve the worker of the effects of the injury and to restore the functions of the injured member or organ where such restoration is possible . . . ." After six years of treating with the same physician who prescribed his pain medication, petitioner's pain had not been alleviated with either therapy or medication.

The court affirmed the compensation judge, holding petitioner failed to prove continued opioid treatment would cure or relieve his injury and return him to better function. The court found N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 requires proof that opioid medication provides curative relief and that continued use of opioids improves the function of the injured worker.

The court held that a New York doctor who provided medical treatment to a New Jersey resident at a New York hospital was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey in a lawsuit alleging wrongful death and survivor claims resulting from the medical treatment. Moreover, web-based videos and internet postings describing the doctor's practice are insufficient contacts by themselves to support personal jurisdiction.

In this matter, we address whether it was error to grant C.P.M.'s petition for expungement under the "crime spree" doctrine set forth in the 2018 amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a). C.P.M. filed a petition seeking to expunge several offenses from his criminal record, including: (1) an April 10, 2005 conviction for third-degree possession of CDS, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); and (2) two June 22, 2005 convictions for fourth-degree burglary, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, and fourth-degree criminal mischief, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3(a)(1).

Despite the requirement under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) that a court could only grant an expungement to an applicant who had not been "convicted of any prior or subsequent crime," petitions were periodically granted under a "single spree" or "crime spree" doctrine. In 2015, the Supreme Court definitively rejected the crime spree doctrine, holding that the Legislature clearly intended to "permit expungement of a single conviction arising from multiple offenses only if those offenses occurred as part of a single, uninterrupted criminal event." In re Expungement Petition of J.S., 223 N.J. 54, 73 (2015).

On October 1, 2018, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) was amended to permit the expungement of multiple crimes or offenses that "were interdependent or closely related in circumstances and were committed as part of a sequence of events that took place within a comparatively short period. . . ." The Legislature explained that the addition of the "interdependent or closely related in circumstances" and "within a comparatively short period of time" language was intended to allow expungement of "a so-called 'crime spree.'" S. Judiciary Comm. Statement to S. 3307 1 (L. 2017, c. 244) (emphasis added).

During the hearing on his petition, C.P.M. contended he was eligible for expungement under the crime spree exception in the newly amended statute. He argued that because he was under the influence of drugs during the several-month period in which the offenses occurred, his April and June 2005 convictions were sufficiently related. C.P.M. asserted that the trial court's analysis should include the motivations behind why a defendant committed the crimes.

The court granted the expungement petition under the crime spree exception in N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a). In relying on C.P.M.'s certifications, the judge concluded that C.P.M.'s drug use during the time period of the offenses was the "nexus" permitting a determination that the two incidents were closely related in circumstances.

This court reverses, finding the plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) bars the expungement of C.P.M.'s convictions as the offenses were not interdependent or closely related in circumstances. The offenses at issue – drug possession, burglary, and criminal mischief – do not share common elements. The crimes also are not similar in nature. These offenses were not committed as part of some larger criminal scheme; each offense was a distinct crime perpetrated under entirely different and unrelated circumstances.

A defendant's self-serving declaration of his or her motivation behind crimes fifteen years after their occurrence is not a cognizable consideration within the meaning of the statute. We are satisfied the Legislature did not intend the result compelled by the trial court – that any person addicted to drugs could be eligible for an expungement of any crime the person alleged was committed while he or she was under the influence of an illegal substance.