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:
Battles Won, Others Abandoned: 2024 Brought Big Change to the Judiciary
Beyond the myriad of cases the judiciary handles daily, this year has provided significant changes for New Jersey’s attorneys and judges.
NJSBA Members Made 2024 a Celebration of the Profession
The NJSBA and NJICLE reflect on the many meaningful programs and events that brought the legal community together in 2024. Check out this video reel of the diverse range of events we hosted this year, encompassing vibrant networking opportunities, engaging conferences and memorable receptions, all designed to enrich the experiences of our valued NJSBA members and volunteers.
A federal court decision in the fight over Manhattan’s congestion pricing plan has left both sides claiming victory and attorneys looking for answers from the judge.
2025 McLaughlin Awards to Recognize Excellence in Civil Law Practice
Mark your calendar for the 2025 James J. McLaughlin Awards on Feb. 11, an annual tribute to the highest standard of civility, legal competence and professionalism in the practice of civil law. This year’s awards will honor retired state Supreme Justice Faustino J. Fernandez-Vina, Michael G. Donahue, managing shareholder of Stark & Stark, and include a posthumous recognition of Monmouth County Assignment Judge Lisa P. Thornton. Register here.
$2.85 Million Settlement Reached for Pedestrian Killed by Clifton Police Department Car
A $2.85 million settlement has been reached for a Clifton woman killed when a police officer allegedly lost control of his vehicle.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – December 31, 2024
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Butler, Appellate Division, Judge Accurso. Defendant appealed his convictions for conspiracy and controlled dangerous substance-related offenses and his 15-year sentence. A large scale drug investigation that involved wiretaps and surveillance, led to defendant’s arrest and the discovery of drugs and firearms in an apartment linked to him. Defendant argued the trial was irreparably tainted by prosecutors’ opening statements comparing defendant’s conduct to that shown in the TV show “The Wire,” prejudicial testimony suggesting his involvement in organized crime, court’s threat to jail a witness, admission of inherently unreliable in-court identification and errors in jury instructions. Court found prosecutor’s references to “The Wire” were not egregious enough to warrant a new trial and the unobjected-to trial testimony did not clearly produce an unjust result. Court held defendant’s argument that he was denied due process because a witness was compelled to testify purportedly in violation of his right to remain silent lacked merit. However, court agreed with defendant that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for third-degree conspiracy to distribute CDS. The evidence was sufficient to support a second-degree conspiracy to possess CDS with intent to distribute charge. Court found defendant’s sentence under the possession of a weapon count violated Directive 2021-4 by not containing a period of parole ineligibility and vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing. Trial court also failed to adequately explain its reasons for the basis of, and weight ascribed to, several aggravating factors and failed to address all of the mitigating factors argued by defendant.
CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE
State v. Summers, Appellate Division, Judge Walcott-Henderson. Defendant appealed his conviction and seven-year sentence under the No Early Release Act following a guilty plea to first-degree aggravated manslaughter. Defendant’s conviction followed the discovery of Gregory Harvey’s body, surrounded by foam from a fire extinguisher, with surveillance footage showing defendant leaving the scene with a fire extinguisher. Pre-trial, defendant challenged the validity of the search warrant for his cell phone, which authorized a broad search of all data without temporal limitations. The trial court found the warrant was supported by probable cause, distinguishing it from precedent cases by noting the connection between the phone and the crime, finding the scope of the warrant was sufficiently limited to the potential location of evidence connected to the crime. On appeal, defendant contested the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his cell phone, arguing that the search warrant was overbroad and lacked particularity. The court ruled that the warrant was constitutionally invalid due to its expansive scope and lack of particularity, as it failed to limit the search to relevant timeframes or data. The court reversed the denial of the suppression motion and remanded the case to allow defendant to withdraw his plea.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Marzetta v. Tassev, Appellate Division, Judge Vernoia. Plaintiffs appealed the order confirming an arbitration award and denying their motion for sanctions against defendants in a commercial dispute arising over the sale of an electrical contracting business. Plaintiffs purchased Broadway, an industrial electrical contractor. Within weeks of the closing, Broadway experienced cash-flow problems, plaintiffs defaulted on promissory notes and company closed. Plaintiffs alleged defendants conspired to undermine Broadway and reclaim its business through a new operation. The parties agreed to arbitration, in which plaintiffs sought sanctions for alleged spoliation of electronically stored information on a server. Arbitrator found defendants responsible for spoliation but imposed the sanction of dismissing defendants’ counterclaims rather than suppressing defenses or entering default against them. Arbitrator also found Broadway failed because it lacked adequate working capital, had inconsistent revenues and plaintiffs failed to prove their claim that Broadway’s closure was the product of any wrongful conduct by defendants. Plaintiffs argued the sanction was insufficient. Trial court noted that arbitrator’s decision was based on plaintiffs’ failure to prove their claims, even with an adverse inference for spoliation, and found no abuse of discretion in the arbitrator’s sanction, which denied defendants over $1.2 million in counterclaims and required them to pay plaintiffs’ forensic expert costs. Court agreed arbitrator and trial court did not abuse their discretion in denying the more severe sanctions sought by plaintiffs.
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Dorrell v. Woodruff Energy Inc., Appellate Division, Judge Vernoia. Defendant Chevron appealed the remand court order finding plaintiff’s expert had been properly qualified at the time of trial to offer an opinion that gasoline was a contaminant on the property and had used a reliable methodology as the basis for that opinion as well as his opinion concerning the causation in plaintiff’s action asserting that Chevron was liable for private contributions under the New Jersey Compensation and Control Act. Plaintiff discovered her property was contaminated and sued under the Spill Act. Trial court found evidence of gasoline contamination attributable to Chevron. Chevron appealed and court remanded for a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing to determine the admissibility of plaintiff’s expert’s opinion. Remand court based its findings on its review of expert’s qualifications, including his LSRP licensure and experience investigating over 1,000 sites for contamination, of which eighty percent had involved petroleum contamination, and expert’s investigation was consistent with the methodologies promulgated by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Chevron argued remand court misapprehended the remand order and erred by focusing on whether expert was generally qualified to investigate spills rather than on whether he was qualified to “distinguish between petroleum products based on the chemical constituents in dissolved phase samples.” Court reversed, finding remand court abused its discretion because the record lacked evidence supporting the reliability of expert’s methodology to identify gasoline based on the chemical array in dissolved samples. Court noted there were several available and reliable tests and investigative techniques that expert failed to employ.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Asdal v. Chester Twp., Appellate Division, Judge Accurso. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his complaint against defendants seeking mandamus relief to enforce stormwater management regulations against his neighbor and his claims of nuisance and trespass against neighbor. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the County Agricultural Development Board against neighbor farm pursuant to the Right to Farm Act. Board determined it did not have jurisdiction to determine whether a farmer was in compliance with State law. Plaintiff filed his complaint in lieu of prerogative writs alleging Township officials had refused to enforce the Township’s zoning ordinances by allowing the farm defendants to conduct commercial activities in a residential zone without obtaining approvals from the Zoning Board or Planning Board or any other agency. Plaintiff also alleged the farm store was a non-permitted commercial use in a residential zone in violation of the Municipal Land Use Law and township ordinances. Plaintiff further argued Township defendants had not ensured that farm provide a stormwater management plan for the entirety of their operation, nor directed the farm defendants to obtain any waivers or exceptions to compliance with the laws and regulations regarding stormwater runoff. He claimed runoff from the farm had caused a 12-foot deep cut in the back of his property. Trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding the Right to Farm Act preempted municipal land use jurisdiction over commercial farms, mootness due to a prior determination by the County Engineer and that the CADB had primary jurisdiction over the farm’s operations. Court reversed. Court rejected defendants’ assertion that plaintiff’s claim was time barred, found Township’s refusal to act left plaintiff without an effective remedy and that mandamus relief was appropriate. Court noted the CADB’s inability to determine compliance with storm water regulations necessitated court intervention to resolve plaintiff’s claims.