Criminal Law Library Blog
These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed
NEWS BRIEFS:
J U.S. Attorney, Philip Sellinger, Announces Resignation
Philip R. Sellinger, who has served as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey for the last three years, announced his resignation in a Monday statement.
Walk the Diversity Talk with Sean Carter and NJICLE
Join Sean Carter, humorist at law on Dec. 31 for a serious look at eliminating bias. In this new NJCILE program, lawyers will learn how to translate their insights about implicit bias into actionable steps to reduce bias in their own decision-making and in the organizations they lead. Attendees can earn two diversity credits. Register here.
Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar’s Leadership Diversity Initiatives
The New Jersey State Bar Association’s leadership diversity initiatives are constitutional under the First Amendment right to expressive association, the Appellate Division has ruled.
The NJSBA Docket is Here With the Latest Updates From the Legal Community
Check out the latest issue of The NJSBA Docket, a bulletin with news from the Judiciary, recent Supreme Court and appellate decisions and Association highlights. Read on to get the information and resources you need. Be sure to subscribe to the The NJSBA Docket on LinkedIn.
“NJSBA members honored with Amicus, Legislative Awards
The New Jersey State Bar Association Board of Trustees presented its annual Amicus and Legislative Awards to more than a dozen NJSBA members during a celebration at the New Jersey Law Center on Dec. 12. The awards honor individuals who collectively have served as the voice of New Jersey attorneys by dedicating many hours to crafting Supreme Court briefs, arguing in the state’s most important cases and helping shape legislation for the better.”
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – December 23, 2024
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CRIMINAL LAW
State in the Interest of J.S., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Juvenile appealed his adjudication of delinquency for conduct that would constitute the third-degree crime of public false alarm if committed by an adult. Twelve-year-old juvenile sent a message in a group chat with nearly 50 middle-school students stating, “About to shoot the school up tomorrow.” Another student, who was not in the group chat, received a screenshot of the message and told his mother who told school which called police. Principal questioned juvenile who said the message was in reference to a “gore video.” Juvenile testified at trial that the message was a joke and he did not think anyone would take it seriously. Juvenile had no access to weapons. Trial court found juvenile guilty. Juvenile argued trial court erred by finding that juvenile knew beyond a reasonable doubt that his joke to friends on a group chat was likely to cause public alarm. Court deferred to trial court’s credibility findings and found its decision was supported by substantial credible evidence.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Jacobs, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree reckless manslaughter. A red car followed victim’s minivan and shots from the red car killed victim. State’s evidence against defendant included statements from a friend and a former girlfriend of the defendant about defendant’s alleged involvement in the crime, which were recanted at trial, and expert testimony from an FBI agent regarding location data for defendant’s cell phone. Defendant challenged the jury instructions on lesser-included offenses, the admission of expert testimony, the reading of witnesses’ out of court redacted statements and the sentence. Trial court instructed the jury on the lesser-included offenses of aggravated and reckless manslaughter, despite objections from both parties, based on evidence suggesting the shooter’s intent might not have been to kill. Court found no error in the jury charge, noting the evidence supported the lesser-included charges. Court also upheld the admission of the FBI agent’s expert testimony on cell phone data. The court found expert’s methodology was reliable, his testimony was appropriately limited to general approximations of location, and the short notice the State provided in designating agent as its expert was justified in the unique circumstances presented Court rejected defendant’s challenge to the trial court’s admission of the incriminating hearsay statements of witnesses, defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct and held the extended-term sentence imposed on defendant offense was authorized under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a). ^
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. T.L.C., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant, appealed from twenty-six convictions for sexual offenses and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant was dating the mother of two minors and staying at their residence. Minor revealed the assaults to her father and played a phone recording of defendant asking her to have sex. Father took minor to the police. Police told mother who questioned other minor who stated that defendant had assaulted her. Minors gave statements and clothing to police. Police conducted a recorded consensual intercept call between one minor and defendant in which defendant admitted to having sex with minor. Defendant was Mirandized and gave a statement denying the allegations. Trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate 106-year prison term. Defendant argued prosecutor’s comments during summation were prejudicial, the indictment process was flawed, the denial of a bill of particulars hindered his defense and the sentence was excessive. Court found prosecutor’s summation comments addressing witness credibility were permissible, the denial of defendant’s motions to dismiss the indictment was proper, there was no error in the grand jury proceeding and the indictment was sufficiently specific. However, court reversed the extended term sentence as a persistent offender and remanded for resentencing consistent with Erlinger v. U.S., 602 U.S. 821.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. A.R.G., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant was convicted for sexually assaulting his girlfriend’s two daughters over a ten-year period, with the mother’s knowledge and consent. Defendant’s PCR petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to the improper testimony by the forensic nurse examiner; to object to the mother’s testimony; to challenge the denial of the suppression motion; to adequately cross-examine a witness based on contradictory evidence and to investigate the victims’ motives to fabricate the sexual assault allegations. PCR court noted defendant’s claims were addressed on direct appeal or were frivolous. PCR court further found defendant’s allegation, that a neighbor would have testified favorably regarding the victims’ motive to fabricate the allegations, was nothing more than a “conclusory” statement because there was no certification or affidavit from the neighbor to support defendant’s contention. Court found no basis to reverse PCR judge’s determination that defendant failed to establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
CRIMINAL LAW
Watkins v. New Jersey State Parole Bd., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Daniel Watkins appealed the New Jersey State Parole Board’s decision to revoke his parole supervision for life status due to violations of special conditions. Appellant had previously pled guilty to third-degree possession of child pornography and was sentenced to a three-year custodial term and PSL, with conditions restricting his internet access and prohibiting the possession of sexually explicit materials. Despite receiving permission to possess a Trac Phone with limited internet capability, appellant was found to have used an unauthorized fully internet-capable phone to view pornography, which he admitted to possessing during a search of his residence. Appellant waived his initial hearing and proceeded to a final parole revocation hearing, where he pled guilty. Appellant attempted to explain his actions, citing his need for internet access for medical and work-related purposes. The hearing officer recommended revocation of his PSL, citing appellant’s deceptive actions and lack of amenability to supervision. The parole board concurred, revoking his PSL and imposing a twelve-month incarceration term. On appeal, Appellant argued that the internet restriction was unconstitutionally overbroad and that his violations were not serious or persistent. The court found the internet restriction constitutional, as it was tailored to appellant’s child pornography offense and aimed at reducing recidivism. The court affirmed the parole board’s decision to revoke PSL, concluding that appellant’s actions were serious and persistent violations of his parole conditions and supported by credible evidence. The court concluded that the parole board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.