Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

Search

  • IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO FORFEIT FIREARMS, CLAIMANT FRANK W. FARRELL, JR. (FO-01-0124-22, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0864-22 Appellate Dec. 20, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FUQUAN K. KNIGHT, ET AL. (19-01-0010, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0377-20/A-0437-21 - STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FUQUAN K. KNIGHT, ET AL. (19-01-0010, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (REDACTED) [A shortened version of this opinion has been approved for publication] A-0377-20/A-0437-21 Appellate Dec. 21, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. FUQUAN K. KNIGHT, ET AL. (19-01-0010, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (REDACTED) A-0377-20/A-0437-21 Appellate Dec. 21, 2023 Summary A-0377-20/A-0437-21 These two consolidated appeals by codefendant brothers in an armed robbery case concern a surveillance video recorded at the crime scene.  The key approximately six-second portion of the video shows three men, two of whom were allegedly armed, escorting the victim behind a deli moments before he was robbed.  The State contended the culprits in the video were the two brothers and their father.  The video was played without objection during the trial and the State's closing argument. During its deliberations, the jury requested that the video be shown again multiple times, in slow motion and with pauses.  Over defense counsel's objection, the trial judge granted the jury's requests, and the videos were replayed in the courtroom under the judge's supervision.  On appeal, defendants argue the slow-motion video replays were unduly prejudicial, citing research showing that such slow-motion replays can increase juror perceptions of an actor's intentionality. In this opinion of first impression, the court holds that, subject to offsetting concerns of undue prejudice, surveillance video footage may be presented to jurors during a trial and in summation in slow motion or at other varying speeds, or with intermittent pauses, if the trial court in its discretion reasonably finds those modes of presentation would assist the jurors' understanding of the pertinent events and help them resolve disputed factual issues. The courts further holds—again subject to offsetting concerns of undue prejudice—that trial judges in their discretion may grant a jury's requests during deliberations to replay the videos in such modes one or more times, provided that the playbacks occur in open court under the judge's supervision and in the presence of counsel. Going forward, the court offers several non-exclusive factors to assist judges when considering whether to allow surveillance videos to be shown in varying speeds or with intermittent pauses during the trial and summations, and on a jury's request during deliberations.  The court further recommends that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider crafting an instruction to guide jurors when surveillance videos are presented in such modes. Other issues raised on appeal are addressed in the unpublished portion of this opinion. Close
  • U.G. VS. T.S. (FV-14-0956-21, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1803-21 Appellate Dec. 21, 2023
  • J.R. VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD, ET AL. (L-0470-16, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1936-21 Appellate Dec. 21, 2023
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CARLOS LOPEZ (13-04-0511, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2742-21 Appellate Dec. 21, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF MARILYN ROMAN AND SUDHAN THOMAS, ETC. (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-2858-21 Appellate Dec. 21, 2023
  • MARIA AZZARO, ET AL. VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF TRENTON, ETC. (NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION) A-0188-22 Appellate Dec. 21, 2023 Summary A-0188-22 In this appeal, the court addressed the novel issue of whether N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6 allows school board employees to wait until the final disposition of a civil or administrative action filed against them before seeking defense costs and indemnification from a school board.  The court concluded an employee cannot wait until the action is completed and must provide the school board with reasonable notice after the initiation of the proceeding.  The court observed the procedure under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6.1 is distinguishable, which provides that an employee cannot seek reimbursement of defense costs and indemnification until the conclusion of a criminal or quasi-criminal action.  Petitioners sought reimbursement of attorney fees and costs from the Trenton Board of Education following the favorable resolution of an administrative action against vice principal, Maria Azzaro, stemming from alleged improper grading practices and other improprieties.  The court affirmed the Commissioner of Education's final agency decision denying petitioners' request and held that bringing an action under N.J.S.A. 18A:16-6 twelve years after the initiation of an administrative action was not reasonable under the facts of the case. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARKITA A. NORRIS (10-07-0774, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3045-20 Appellate Dec. 22, 2023
  • LAURA GERMINARIO VS. WESTWOOD REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. (L-4035-20, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3137-21 Appellate Dec. 22, 2023
  • ROBERT J. TRIFFIN VS. ONE NJ NEPTUNE 230 MANAGEMENT LLC, ET AL. (DC-008989-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3279-21 Appellate Dec. 22, 2023
  • WATFORD SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. MDF 92 RIVER STREET, LLC, ET AL. (L-1168-21, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3505-21 Appellate Dec. 22, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF R.W.T.'S APPLICATION, ETC. (GPA-BER-0011-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3899-21 Appellate Dec. 22, 2023 Summary A-3899-21 This matter presents a question of first impression concerning the rights and responsibilities of New Jersey gun permit applicants under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).    Petitioner appeals the denial of his application for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPIC) and a permit to purchase a handgun (PPH).  He raises several contentions, including a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute that requires denial of an FPIC/PPH application if it includes any knowingly false information, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c).  Bruen adopted a new test for resolving Second Amendment challenges, requiring modern regulations be consistent with this Nation's tradition of firearms regulation as shown by a well-established and representative historical analogue.  The court upholds the constitutionality of the falsification disqualification provision even though there appears to be no historical analogue for it.  Bruen acknowledged the constitutionality of "shall-issue" licensing regimes, which require gun permit applicants to file an application that prompts a background check.  Truthfulness on an application is an integral part of the background investigation process acknowledged in Bruen.  The falsification disqualifier safeguards the integrity of the licensing system without imposing additional substantive limits on who can purchase a firearm.  The court further notes the plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover lying on an application form.  Because that conduct is not protected by the Second Amendment, the court concludes its regulation is not subject to the new "analogical" paradigm.  The court also rejects petitioner's contention the falsification disqualifier applies only to material falsehoods.  Relatedly, the court rejects petitioner's contention the falsification disqualifier does not apply in this case because he retracted the false statement in his application during the Law Division hearing.  Petitioner's admission at the hearing that he had, in fact, been treated by a psychiatrist came too late, precluding the licensing authority from conducting a follow-up investigation before the hearing.  Because the falsification disqualification provision categorically requires denial of petitioner's application, the court chooses not to address petitioner's facial and as-applied challenges to the trial court's alternative determination that issuance of an FPIC and PPH "would not be in the interest of public health, safety or welfare" under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. COLBY DESSOURCES (17-12-3564, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0242-22 Appellate Dec. 22, 2023
  • DIONICIO RODRIGUEZ VS. SHELBOURNE SPRING, LLC, ET AL. (L-0595-22, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2079-22 Appellate Dec. 22, 2023
  • H&M Bay, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation 012545-2021 Tax Dec. 21, 2023
  • IN THE MATTERS OF VICTORIA ALBERTO, ET AL. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-0032-21 Appellate Dec. 26, 2023
  • LIXIA WANG VS. MIN WU (FM-12-1081-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1654-21 Appellate Dec. 26, 2023
  • ELIZABETH BOLLINGER VS. JEFFREY ENGELSMAN (FM-18-0322-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3565-21 Appellate Dec. 26, 2023
  • IN THE MATTER OF M.G.F. (322318, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3982-21 Appellate Dec. 26, 2023