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:
A daunting mix of policy, economic, business and tech changes are hitting legal departments at once, creating challenges for in-house leaders on par with those spurred by the Great Recession of 2008 and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic five years ago.
This week’s Capitol Report covers the NJSBA’s feedback on the the 2025 rules reports regarding the Supreme Court’s Committee on Diversity, Inclusion and Community Engagement and Family Practice Committee. Read more about the recommendations here.
Hackensack Crash Victims Reach $1.75M Settlement Ahead of Trial in Spinal Injury Case
Two Ringwood residents who suffered significant spinal injuries in a 2020 car accident have agreed to a $1.75 million settlement.
Tackle Imposter Syndrome and Burnout in the Legal Profession With NJCILE
NJICLE will offer a thought-provoking seminar on April 17 about how imposter syndrome and burnout can impact your legal practice and what you can do about it. Learn strategies and techniques to deal with it effectively, whether you suffer from it or know colleagues who do. Register here.
A group of active and retired federal judges on Wednesday agreed on one thing when it comes to navigating discovery in a world that has embraced artificial intelligence and its risks: the technology isn’t going anywhere.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – March 27, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONTRACTS
Roma Pizzeria v. Harbortouch, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision to enforce a 2015 settlement agreement, which allegedly precluded a new class action against defendant for conduct occurring after the settlement. Defendant, a provider of hardware and software to merchants for processing point of sale credit card payments, was sued for claims related to its business practices and fees charged to merchants. Those claims were previously settled in a 2015 class action settlement agreement where defendant paid $7.2 million to class members. In support of their claim that they could bring the present class action, plaintiff contended that the settlement did not include a “covenant not to sue” for future conduct, while defendant argued that the release language barred future claims related to the settled action. The trial court found that plaintiff’s claims were covered by the 2015 settlement agreement as the prior action involved similar claims about defendant’s fee structure and business practices to those alleged by plaintiff in the present case, thus barring the new case. On appeal, the court concluded that the release language was ambiguous regarding the scope of the release in the 2015 settlement agreement and whether the parties intended to preclude future claims based on post-settlement conduct, and therefore extrinsic evidence could clarify its intended meaning. The court vacated the trial court’s dismissal order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to develop the record with appropriate proofs to aid in contract interpretation.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Winstead, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant was charged in two Bergen County indictments for third-degree burglary and second-degree robbery, related to incidents at a Wells Fargo Bank and a Burger King in Hackensack. Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea in 2017, agreeing to special probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 and participation in recovery court, with an alternate sentence of imprisonment if probation was terminated. Defendant ultimately violated the conditions of his special probation, which the trial court terminated, imposing the alternate sentence. In his PCR petition, defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel at the original sentencing and during the violation of probation proceedings, asserting that trial counsel failed to present mitigating factors and object to improper aggravating factors. The trial court denied defendant’s PCR petition, determining that defendant failed to establish a prima facie claim of IAC or demonstrate that his sentence was illegal. The trial court found that the mitigating factor did not outweigh the aggravating factors, leading to the termination of probation and imposition of the alternate sentence. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of the adjournment request to amend the PCR brief, citing no manifest wrong or injury from the denial and no prejudice to defendant. The court concluded that the trial court transcripts did not support defendant’s IAC claim, and that the procedural history confirmed defendant’s knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel. The court upheld the original sentencing and VOP proceedings, finding no abuse of discretion. (March 26, 2025)
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Green, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant was convicted in a second trial for first-degree murder and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, after a mistrial in the first trial due to a hung jury. At sentencing, the trial court merged the weapon possession conviction with the murder conviction, sentencing defendant to 60 years’ imprisonment with an 85% parole ineligibility term under the No Early Release Act. Defendant’s PCR petition claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically the failure to investigate and present a third-party guilt defense. The trial court found overwhelming evidence against defendant, including eyewitness testimony, surveillance footage, and defendant’s own incriminating statements, which negated the claim of ineffective assistance. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case for ineffective assistance of counsel under the Strickland standard. The court noted that the evidence presented by the state was strong and that trial counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court upheld the denial of defendant’s PCR petition and request for an evidentiary hearing, finding no merit in the claims presented.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Rivas, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss a DWI charge. Officer found defendant asleep in his vehicle parked on a residential street with the engine running, lights on and an open wine bottle in the center console. Officer detected the odor of alcohol on defendant’s breath and noted his eyes were bloodshot and watery. Defendant failed field sobriety tests and was arrested. Defendant argued state could not prove “operation” of the vehicle. Defendant admitted sleeping in the vehicle with the engine running, consuming a standard-size bottle of wine and failing the field sobriety tests. Municipal court found state had presented sufficient evidence that defendant operated a vehicle in violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) and denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the DWI charge. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving his right to appeal. Law Division affirmed the municipal court. Defendant argued that sleeping in a driver’s seat with the engine running did not show intent to operate a vehicle. Court affirmed. Court was not persuaded that State v. Daly, 64 N.J. 122, warranted reversal. Court held the record in this case established a triable issue as to defendant’s intent to operate the vehicle but granted a stay to allow the parties to seek emergent relief from the Supreme Court.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Bryant, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss two counts in the original 1993 indictment against him. Court noted defendant’s petitions for post-conviction relief had been denied. Defendant argued court lacked jurisdiction to impose judgment on his conviction because the police did not issue complaint-warrants for two charges in the original 1993 indictment. Trial court found defendant waived his right to challenge the indictment by not raising the issue in his 1994 motion to dismiss or in subsequent appeals, PCR petitions and motion to correct an illegal sentence. Trial court also determined that if the motion was considered a PCR petition, it would be time-barred under Rule 3:22-12. Defendant argued his appeal should be handled either as a subsequent PCR petition under Rule 3:22-4 or as a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Court rejected all of defendant’s arguments and affirmed substantially for the reasons set forth in the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. Court noted defendant offered no support for his contention a complaint warrant was necessary prior to the grand jury indictment charging him with two counts of first-degree robbery and, if his motion was a PCR motion, it was time barred.