- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KEVIN L. MARTIN (91-12-5048, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1994-22 Appellate April 5, 2024
- M.S. VS. T.S. (FV-08-0984-23, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2507-22 Appellate April 5, 2024
- TAMARA WILLIAMS VS. MERCER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL. (L-0276-23, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2726-22 Appellate April 5, 2024
- BRITNEY MOTIL VS. WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY (L-0734-21, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0400-23 Appellate April 5, 2024 Summary A-0400-23 In this automobile insurance coverage dispute, the court considered defendant Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company's appeal from Law Division orders granting summary judgment to plaintiff Britney Motil, entitling her to $100,000 in underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance coverage, and denying reconsideration. This appeal presented the novel issue of whether plaintiff was entitled to UIM coverage as a "covered driver" injured in an automobile accident while driving a "covered auto" with an identified alternate garaging address under her parents' automobile policy. Defendant disclaimed coverage, under the policy's uninsured motorist (UM)/UIM endorsement step-down provision, because plaintiff was neither a named insured nor a defined family member. After a de novo review, the court concluded there was ambiguity between the declaration and the policy's step-down provision of $15,000 in UIM coverage because the declaration plainly provided: $100,000 UM/UIM coverage for each person; plaintiff was a covered driver; the UM/UIM premium charged was the same for each vehicle; and plaintiff's vehicle was a covered vehicle with an alternate garaging address. Further, the court concluded the policyholder's reasonable expectation of $100,000 UIM coverage should be afforded. The court affirmed the Law Division's orders finding plaintiff was entitled to $100,000 in UIM insurance coverage and denying reconsideration. Close
- BARBARA POULARD VS. LUCIEN POULARD, JR. (FM-01-0800-17, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2941-21 Appellate April 8, 2024
- IN THE MATTER OF J.M., ET AL. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0129-22 Appellate April 8, 2024
- IMPACT SOLAR, LLC VS. DANIEL LIBERTA, ET AL. (L-3117-19, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0785-22 Appellate April 8, 2024
- CAPE JETTY, LLC, ET AL. VS. CAPE MAY PLANNING BOARD, ET AL. (L-0083-22, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1418-22 Appellate April 8, 2024
- STEVEN ANELLO, ET AL. VS. MARK J. INGBER, ESQ., ET AL. (L-3672-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2055-22 Appellate April 8, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. J.H.P. (21-12-0268, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-0467-23 Appellate April 8, 2024 Summary A-0467-23 At issue in this interlocutory appeal is the propriety of a pretrial order compelling the administration of psychotropic medication in an attempt to restore competency, without a defendant's consent, when the accused has not been deemed a danger to self or others. With defendant's constitutional rights in view, the court applies the four-pronged test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), and concludes the motion judge erroneously determined the State satisfied the second Sell prong. The court therefore reverses the order under review. In doing so, the court departs from the majority of federal appellate courts and holds the standard of review under the Sell test is mixed; the court therefore reviews the motion court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error as to each Sell prong. Having resolved the issues by applying the Sell standard, the court does not reach the constitutional arguments urged by defendant and amici curiae. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SHANNON A. MCGUIGAN (19-07-0888 AND 20-03-0306, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3224-21 Appellate April 9, 2024 Summary A-3224-21 This appeal addresses whether the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a statement defendant had made to police and barring in part the testimony of defendant's expert witness. Several months after the drug-induced death of the victim, a police detective interviewed defendant, eliciting from her information about her cell-phone usage before he advised her of her Miranda rights and information regarding her drug-selling activity and contact with the victim after he advised her of her rights. The detective told defendant he was "not holding anything back" and was "laying it all out . . . on the table" but never mentioned the death of the victim and repeatedly used the present tense when discussing her. Defendant confessed to selling heroin to the victim. The parties did not raise before the trial court the admissibility of defendant's statement, and the statement was admitted into evidence. The trial court granted the State's pretrial motion to bar defendant's expert witness from testifying about drug use and addiction, finding him qualified only in toxicology and not in those fields. A jury convicted defendant of committing a first-degree drug-induced death crime, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-9(a), along with other drug-related crimes. The court finds the trial court (1) committed plain error by admitting defendant's statement without first conducting a Rule 104 hearing to determine under a totality-of-the-circumstances test the voluntariness of defendant's statement and Miranda waiver; (2) erred in admitting the pre-Miranda questions and answers but that that error did not rise to the level of plain error because other evidence was admitted regarding defendant's cell-phone usage; and (3) abused its discretion by limiting defendant's expert testimony without conducting a Rule 104 hearing regarding the expert witness's qualifications and opinions. The court remands the case and instructs the trial court to conduct evidentiary hearings regarding the voluntariness of defendant's statement, the qualifications of defendant's expert witness, and the admissibility of his opinions. Whether defendant's convictions are affirmed or vacated for a new trial depends on the outcomes of those hearings. Close
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ORRIC MITCHELL (18-01-0133, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0224-22 Appellate April 9, 2024
- AMERICO ARZOLA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. (POLICE AND FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM) A-0275-22 Appellate April 9, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPHER W. HEDDY, ET AL. (21-02-0026, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0299-22/A-0300-22 Appellate April 9, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTONIO SUMMA (19-05-0449, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0369-22 Appellate April 9, 2024
- E & R ASSOCIATES, LLC., ET AL. VS. 560 55 STREET, LLC, ET AL. (F-006853-20, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1039-22 Appellate April 9, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KATHLEEN GANSER (7-21, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1857-22 Appellate April 9, 2024
- QUEEN L. BATES, ET AL. VS. LORI A. ROBSON, ET AL. (L-7347-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3185-21 Appellate April 10, 2024
- MARIA PERDOMO VS. SNOWLIFT, LLC, ET AL. (L-1749-18, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0067-22 Appellate April 10, 2024
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KELLYANN HOUGHTALING (22-04-0327, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0274-22 Appellate April 10, 2024