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

Search

  • JONATHAN FRANCO VS. BOARD OF REVIEW, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR) A-3974-22 Appellate Dec. 18, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LASHAUN BUNCH (16-08-2303, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0203-23 Appellate Dec. 18, 2024
  • D.B. VS. T.D.-B. (FM-04-0355-19, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0312-23 Appellate Dec. 18, 2024
  • MIRZA M. BULUR, ET AL. VS. THE NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. (L-2736-23 and L-3290-23, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0629-23/A-1209-23 Appellate Dec. 18, 2024 Summary A-0629-23/A-1209-23 The mayor of Paterson, its public safety director, and its police chief sued the Attorney General and related defendants in the Law Division after the Attorney General superseded the entire Paterson Police Department.  The Attorney General, assumed administrative and operational control on March 27, 2023, transferred the police chief to the Division of Criminal Justice in Trenton, and appointed an Officer-in-Charge of the Paterson Police Department.  The Law Division judge consolidated and transferred the matters to the Appellate Division for review of the Attorney General's final administrative decision.  On appeal, plaintiffs argue, among other things, that neither statutes nor relevant case law support the supersession of the entire Paterson Police Department. The court held that the Attorney General and related defendants did not have authority, either express or implied, to supersede the daily operations of the Paterson Police Department.  The court directed the Attorney General to: reassign the police chief to Paterson; to relinquish control of the day-to-day operation and administration of the police department to plaintiffs; and issue a report to plaintiffs summarizing all actions and expenditures undertaken by defendants on behalf of the department within twenty-one days.  The 2021 supersession of the Paterson Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit was left undisturbed.     Close
  • NADEZDHA SHERMAN VS. HOWARD SHERMAN (FM-12-2076-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1941-23 Appellate Dec. 18, 2024
  • State v. Fuquan K. Knight; State v. Shaquan K. Knight (088970) (Essex County and Statewide) A-37/38-23 Supreme Dec. 18, 2024 Oral Argument A-37/38-23 A-37/38-23 Audio for A-37/38-23 Close Summary A-37/38-23 The Appellate Division’s judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Sabatino’s opinion. The Court concurs with the Appellate Division’s guidance and list of non-exclusive factors for trial courts to consider in exercising their discretion, although the Court notes that the concerns raised in the study about intentionality cited by defendants would need to be tested under the standard articulated in State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023). The Court also agrees with the recommendation that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider a model charge regarding jury requests to replay video evidence. The Court offers additional comments on why watching a video in slow motion is not beyond the ken of an average juror, and why playing the difficult-to-perceive recording here in slow motion to assist the jury was not an alteration or distortion of the video. Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JASON BAKER (94-06-0667, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2359-22 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • KAYLA SINGLETARY, ET AL. VS. ACORN NJ STRAIGHT APARTMENTS, LP, ET AL. (L-3858-20, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3408-22 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ARIEL JAZMIN (16-03-0203, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3730-22 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • DCPP VS. J.G. AND J.M., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF M.M. AND L.M. (FG-21-0102-23, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) A-0551-23/A-0552-23 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • HEADLANDS ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, LP VS. LINDA C. KOWALSKY, ET AL. (F-011255-22, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1217-23 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • L.G. VS. J.B.M. (FV-16-1499-22, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1447-23 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMIE COOPER (08-08-22, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1727-23 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • AIR HOMES, LLC VS. PATRICIA C. BENSON (DC-002991-24, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2352-23 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JORGE E. ROJAS (23-09-1683, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2629-23 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMEL CARLTON (20-12-0711, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (RESUBMITTED) (REDACTED) A-0532-22 Appellate Dec. 19, 2024 Summary A-0532-22 Defendant challenges his extended-term sentence as a persistent offender based on Erlinger v. United States , 602 U.S. 821 (2024), decided on June 21, 2024.  The Erlinger majority held that under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, a jury—not a sentencing judge—must decide whether the defendant's prior convictions had been committed on separate occasions, which is required to impose an enhanced sentence under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.  It is undisputed that Erlinger abrogates the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in State v. Pierce , 188 N.J. 155 (2006), which reached a different conclusion with respect to enhanced punishment as a persistent offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a). The State acknowledges that the Erlinger rule applies retroactively to "pipeline" cases pending direct appeal.  The State also concedes that defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Erlinger were violated when the judge, rather than a jury, decided that he was a persistent offender eligible for an extended term of imprisonment.   The Attorney General nonetheless contends that the violation in this pipeline case was harmless constitutional error because the factual basis for defendant's extended-term eligibility is "overwhelming" and "uncontested."  The court ultimately rejects that argument.  The court notes that while the harmless constitutional error doctrine is mentioned in a one-paragraph concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion, the majority opinion in Erlinger is conspicuously silent on the topic.  The court declines to speculate on why the majority opinion does not address that doctrine.  Instead, the court focuses on the portion of the majority opinion that explicitly rejected the argument that a jury verdict is not required when the predicate facts for an enhanced sentence are "so "'straightforward'" that sending it to a jury would be pointlessly inefficient."  602 U.S. at 839.  Stated another way, the majority opinion makes clear that overwhelming evidence does not obviate the need to have the decision made by a jury rather than a judge.  The majority in Erlinger also stressed that "[t]here is no efficiency exception to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."  Id. at 842.  The court concludes that applying the harmless constitutional error doctrine in these circumstances would eviscerate the Erlinger rule.  The court therefore vacates defendant's persistent-offender extended-term sentence. The court rejects defendant's contention the plain language of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a) precludes a jury from determining whether defendant is eligible for an extended term of imprisonment as a persistent offender. The court concludes the Legislature would prefer to have it construe the statute to comply with the Erlinger rule rather than allow the enhanced sentence provision to succumb to its constitutional infirmity.  Accordingly, the court remands to the trial court with instructions on how to remedy the constitutional violation.  Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMEL CARLTON (20-12-0711, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (RESUBMITTED) A-0532-22 – STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMEL CARLTON (20-12-0711, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (RESUBMITTED) (REDACTED), [A shortened version of this opinion has been approved for publication.], A-0532-22 Appellate Dec. 23, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEREMY ARRINGTON (16-03-0689 AND 17-05-1346, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2662-21 – STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEREMY ARRINGTON (16-03-0689 AND 17-05-1346, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (REDACTED), [A shortened version of this opinion has been approved for publication.], A-2662-21 Appellate Dec. 20, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEREMY ARRINGTON (16-03-0689 AND 17-05-1346, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (REDACTED) A-2662-21 Appellate Dec. 20, 2024 Summary A-2662-21 In adopting the present Criminal Code in 1978, our Legislature delineated the insanity defense to criminal charges as follows: A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. [N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 (emphasis added).] As expressed in these terms, the insanity statute codifies the common-law "M'Naghten" test dating back to nineteenth-century English law.  The Legislature has not revised this definition of insanity since Title 2C's enactment over fifty years ago. The primary legal issue in this appeal is whether criminal defendants in New Jersey invoking N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 are permitted to testify at trial about their own allegedly insane mental state without accompanying expert testimony from a qualified mental health professional.  The court agrees with the trial judge that such lay testimony, untethered to admissible expert opinion substantiating the defendant's "disease of the mind," is inadmissible under our Rules of Evidence and insufficient to advance an insanity defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1.  This conclusion is supported by the history and text of the statute.  It is also consistent with the case law of most states that have addressed the issue under the M'Naghten test.   Although policy arguments can be made and have been made to revise the criteria of N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 and replace the traditional M'Naghten test with modern concepts of mental disorders, the Legislature has not done so.  Nor has our Supreme Court invalidated the statute as unconstitutional or construed the law to allow lay testimony to suffice to establish a defendant's insanity. Consequently, this court holds that defendants must have expert opinion testimony to meet their burden of proving the defense of insanity.  The court affirms the trial court's ruling that disallowed defendant in this case from testifying about his alleged insane state of mind without calling such an expert. Judge Jacobs has filed an opinion concurring in the result in this case, but asserting that the law should permit defendants, in certain exceptional situations, to testify as lay witnesses in support of an insanity defense without corroboration by an expert witness. Close
  • RAJEH A. SAADEH VS. NEW JERSEY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION (L-6023-21, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2201-22 Appellate Dec. 20, 2024