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

Search

  • VINCENT BLEHL VS. THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF SADDLE RIVER, ET AL. (L-2078-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3185-22 Appellate Aug. 14, 2024
  • M.A. VS. P.B. (FM-18-0485-21, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2738-21 Appellate Aug. 15, 2024
  • IN THE MATTER OF SIMONNE ALI, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) A-1585-22 Appellate Aug. 15, 2024
  • IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF A MINOR CHILD BY A.R.G. AND A.M.T.G. (FA-04-0128-20, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3028-22 Appellate Aug. 15, 2024
  • IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRANT M.L. (ML-22-03-0038, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1008-22 Appellate Aug. 16, 2024 Summary A-1008-22 In this appeal, as a matter of first impression, the court considered whether the State may move to expand the scope of notification under Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23, based on an increased risk of harm to the community not otherwise accounted for in the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (Scale). Having reviewed precedent concerning heartland applications, the court was satisfied the State may, in limited circumstances, request notification more expansive than indicated by a registrant's confirmed Scale score.  As with a registrant's heartland application, the State may only request an expansion of notification in the "unusual case where relevant, material, and reliable facts exist for which the Scale does not account, or does not adequately account . . . .  Those facts must be sufficiently unusual to establish that a particular registrant's case falls outside the 'heartland' of cases."  In re Registrant G.B. , 147 N.J. 62, 82 (1996). The court agreed that this case, which resulted in the "ultimate harm" of death to the victim, presented facts not taken into account by the Scale, and that the judge's decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Close
  • C.R.S. VS. H.D. (FD-12-0462-18, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2870-22 Appellate Aug. 16, 2024
  • RIVERSIDE GENETICS LLC, ET AL. VS. BOROUGH OF SOUTH TOMS RIVER (L-1013-22, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0024-22 Appellate Aug. 19, 2024
  • CRAIG SZEMPLE VS. MORRIS COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE (L-0560-22, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0181-22 Appellate Aug. 19, 2024
  • JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. CHARLES BERNHAMMER, ET AL. (F-026716-17, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0221-22 Appellate Aug. 19, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ARTHUR F. WILDGOOSE (16-03-0148, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-1497-22 Appellate Aug. 19, 2024 Summary A-1497-22 The court in this post-conviction relief (PCR) appeal addresses a question of first impression under the Jessica Lunsford Act (JLA), which prescribes a mandatory twenty-five-year sentence for aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of thirteen.  The mandatory minimum sentence can be reduced by up to ten years, but only by the prosecutor through a plea agreement.  A judge, moreover, may not impose a prison term less than the one agreed to by the prosecutor.  To ensure statewide uniformity, the JLA required the Attorney General to issue guidelines channeling the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in making plea offers.  Under the Attorney General Guidelines, prosecutors are expressly prohibited from tendering the most lenient plea offer allowed under the JLA once a defendant is indicted.  In this case, the prosecutor's initial plea offer was tendered after indictment.  Defendant contends the Guidelines' graduated plea provision imposes an impermissible "indictment penalty," violating due process, the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the right under the doctrine of fundamental fairness to a plea offer that is not arbitrary or capricious.  In State v. A.T.C. , the Supreme Court upheld the JLA and Attorney General Guidelines against a facial constitutional challenge, subject to an important condition.  239 N.J. 450, 475 (2019).  The Court held prosecutors must provide a statement of reasons explaining their decision to offer a defendant a reduced term of imprisonment.   That requirement is designed to ensure statewide uniformity and facilitate judicial review to guard against the arbitrary or capricious exercise of prosecutorial discretion.    The A.T.C. Court had no occasion, however, to address the constitutionality of the Guidelines' graduated plea provision at issue in this appeal since the defendant in A.T.C. waived his right to indictment.  Following the analytical template and remedy devised in A.T.C. , the court upholds the constitutionality of the challenged Guidelines' graduated plea feature subject to a condition:  when a prosecutor elects to tender the initial plea offer after indictment, the statement of reasons required by A.T.C. should include an explanation for the timing of the plea offer or else an explanation that the graduated plea provision had no impact on the plea offer.  Applying that rule, the court remands the case for the prosecutor to explain the reason for not tendering a pre-indictment plea offer, and for the PCR judge to review that explanation to determine if the prosecutor's decision constitutes an arbitrary or capricious exercise of prosecutorial discretion resulting in prejudice to defendant.  In all other respects, the court rejects defendant's constitutional arguments.   Close
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICARDO MOISE (15-10-1147, 21-08-0578 AND 22-07-0157, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1196-22 Appellate Aug. 20, 2024
  • D.E.H. VS. B.W.M. (FV-04-2199-23, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-2056-22 Appellate Aug. 20, 2024
  • ROBERT RIVERA VS. UNION COUNTY, TOWNSHIP OF HILLSIDE, ET AL. (L-3250-20, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-2773-22 Appellate Aug. 20, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CHRISTOPHER W. BARCLAY (17-06-0969, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) A-3690-22 Appellate Aug. 20, 2024 Summary A-3690-22      This appeal from the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) presents a novel statutory construction question under the current version of the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (Wiretap Act).  Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(c), law enforcement officers may intercept and record a telephonic communication when a party to the conversation allows them to listen in on the phone call.  Recordings made under this provision are known as "consensual interceptions."  While a consensual interception does not require prior judicial approval in the form of a wiretap order, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(c) requires police to obtain the prior approval of the Attorney General or designee, or a county prosecutor or designee.  In this appeal, the court addresses whether prior prosecutorial approval must be in writing.      The court concludes that nothing in the plain text, legislative history, or case law interpretation of the Wiretap Act requires prior approval of consensual interceptions be made in writing.  The court deems it especially noteworthy that the plain text of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(c) stands in stark contrast to the plain text of the Wiretap Act section governing the internal law enforcement procedure for getting approval to apply to a wiretap judge for an interception order.  N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-8 explicitly provides that the Attorney General, county prosecutor, or a person designated to act for such an official . . . may authorize, in writing , an ex parte application to a judge." (Emphasis added).  The court reasons that provision confirms the Legislature knows how to specify when Attorney General/county prosecutor/designee prior approval must be in writing but chose not to include that requirement with respect to approving a request to conduct a consensual interception.      The court concludes the Legislature did not intend to impose procedural requirements regarding prosecutorial approval of consensual interceptions other than the two conditions expressly articulated in the statutory text: (1) the approval be made by a person designated by the Attorney General or county prosecutor, and (2) such approval be given prior to initiating the consensually-intercepted telephonic communication.  Because the record shows the prosecutor complied with both requirements, the court affirms the denial of defendant's PCR petition. Close
  • CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. VS. ANDREA SMITH (DC-000667-21, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-4001-21 Appellate Aug. 21, 2024
  • KATHLEEN SERVIS VS. GAMAL HALAKA (FM-10-0128-07, HUNTERDON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0777-22 Appellate Aug. 21, 2024
  • STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUSTIN MORGAN (22-05-1241, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RESUBMITTED) A-0499-23 Appellate Aug. 21, 2024 Summary A-0499-23 This appeal presents a question of first impression regarding when the State may be compelled to provide field and health reports of narcotics detection canines in accordance with the Supreme Court's holding in Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013).  Defendant was indicted with second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, fourth-degree possession of hollow nose bullets, third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance, and second-degree certain persons not to have a weapon.  The Law Division denied defendant's motion to compel the State to provide discovery of records related to a narcotics detection canine used to conduct a sniff of the vehicle and whose positive alert gave the basis for probable cause to conduct a full search. Upon granting leave to appeal, the court concludes that under Harris , the canine's field and health records are not per se irrelevant to reliability and probable cause determinations and, therefore, the trial court should have first heard the State's motion challenging the expert before denying the defendant's motion for discovery.  The court reverses and remands for consideration of the State's motion to bar defendant's expert. Close
  • FRANK HOLTHAM, JR., ETC. VS. CATHERINE A. HOLTHAM, ET AL. (C-000056-22, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-3894-21 Appellate Aug. 22, 2024
  • IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH WARNOCK, ETC. (P-000148-21, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-0672-22 Appellate Aug. 22, 2024
  • HELEN F. YATES, ETC. VS. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION (L-0329-21, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) A-1486-22 Appellate Aug. 22, 2024