Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that the State's witness tampering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a), is not unconstitutionally overbroad, but it may have been unconstitutionally applied to the defendant, William Hill, in this case. Hill was initially convicted of first-degree carjacking and third-degree witness tampering. While detained awaiting trial, Hill sent a letter to the carjacking victim, A.Z., asserting his innocence and asking her to reconsider her identification of him as the perpetrator. A.Z. reported the letter to the police, resulting in a charge of witness tampering. The court concluded that Hill's letter did not explicitly ask A.Z. to testify falsely or withhold testimony, leading the Supreme Court of New Jersey to rule that it may have been unconstitutionally applied in Hill's case. The court vacated Hill's witness tampering conviction and remanded the case for a new trial on that charge, but did not vacate his carjacking conviction. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

In this case, defendant Curtis Gartrell fled from police near Newark Penn Station, leaving behind a suitcase containing handguns, ammunition, illegal narcotics, and cash. Gartrell was later apprehended and charged with possessory offenses and resisting arrest. He filed a motion to suppress evidence recovered from the warrantless search of the suitcase, arguing that he did not abandon the suitcase and therefore maintained standing to challenge the search. The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that Gartrell's flight did not indicate an intention to abandon the suitcase. The State appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, holding that Gartrell had abandoned the suitcase.The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court applied the three-factor test from State v. Carvajal, which assesses (1) whether a person has control or dominion over the property, (2) whether the person knowingly and voluntarily relinquishes any possessory or ownership interest in the property, and (3) whether there are other apparent or known owners of the property. The court found that Gartrell's flight from police and deliberate abandonment of the suitcase in a public place indicated a clear intent to relinquish his possessory interest in the bag. Furthermore, there was no evidence of anyone else's interest in the suitcase, including the person Gartrell referred to as "Spoon," who remained unidentified. Therefore, the court concluded that Gartrell lacked standing to challenge the seizure and search of the suitcase. View "State v. Gartrell" on Justia Law

In the case State v. Calvin Fair, the Supreme Court of New Jersey had to decide whether a prosecution for terroristic threats under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a), based on a mens rea of recklessness, is constitutional. The defendant, Calvin Fair, following a conflict with the police, had made threatening statements on Facebook, including knowledge of where the police officers lived and what cars they drove. He was charged under a statute which made it a crime to threaten to commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror.The court held that a mental state of recklessness is constitutionally sufficient for a “true threats” prosecution under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a), as defined in this context as “morally culpable conduct, involving a ‘deliberate decision to endanger another.’” The state must also prove that a reasonable person similarly situated to the victim would have viewed the message as threatening violence. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Appellate Division and remanded the case for a new trial.The court also held that the jury must unanimously agree on whether the defendant violated N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a), (b), or both. This was because the terroristic threats statute listed in the disjunctive two separately enumerated, alternative crimes of terroristic threats. View "State v. Fair" on Justia Law

Plaintiff William DeSimone and a class of plaintiffs brought a suit against Springpoint Senior Living, Inc. (Springpoint) alleging that the company violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) with regard to representations about its entrance fee refund policy. The plaintiffs sought the return of “all monies received or collected from” them by Springpoint. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the refund provision in N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 is limited in scope, providing relief only to victims of food-related fraud as identified in Chapter 347 and does not extend to all CFA violations. The court explained that the plain meanings of “within” and “declared herein” suggest that N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 is limited in application to the provisions of Chapter 347. The court noted that Chapter 347 is not the only conduct-specific supplementary statute to provide additional rights and remedies, including consumer refunds. The court concluded that the allegations were unrelated to misrepresentations of the “identity of food,” hence, plaintiffs are not entitled to a full refund under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11. The court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. View "DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division in a case concerning the New Jersey State Health Benefits Program Act. The case was brought by James Meyers, a retired state police officer, who challenged the State Health Benefits Commission's (SHBC) decision that he was not exempt from health benefits premium-sharing obligations imposed by the Act. The Act requires public employees to contribute towards the cost of their healthcare benefits upon retirement, with an exemption for employees who had 20 or more years of creditable service in a state or locally administered retirement system as of June 28, 2011. Meyers had 17 years and 9 months of creditable service at that time. Upon his retirement in 2015, he was erroneously offered retiree health benefits at no premium cost. This mistake was discovered in 2017, and the state began deducting premium-sharing contributions from his pension payments.The Court held that Meyers was not eligible for the exemption under the Act, and correcting the erroneous exemption was proper. The court found that neither Meyers' subsequent service nor his purchase of four years of military service credit could change the fact that he did not meet the Act's requirement as of June 28, 2011. The court also agreed with the Appellate Division's determination that it was not necessary to reach the issue of equitable estoppel. The court noted that a governmental entity cannot be estopped from refusing to take an action that it was never authorized to take under the law, even if it had mistakenly agreed to that action. In this case, the SHBC was never authorized to offer Meyers free healthcare benefits, an act beyond the jurisdiction of the SHBC and therefore ultra vires in the primary sense. Thus, the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply. View "Meyers v. State Health Benefits Commission" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the Supreme Court of New Jersey considered whether the safeguards relating to eyewitness identification evidence should apply when lawyers meet with witnesses to prepare for trial. The case involved Brandon Washington, who was charged with two counts of attempted murder after shooting two people at a "Ladies Night" event. During the initial investigation, several witnesses selected Washington's picture from a photo array. Later, during trial preparation, an assistant prosecutor showed some witnesses the same photo array they had seen before or a single photo of Washington from Facebook. The witnesses later identified Washington in court. One witness identified Washington for the first time at trial.The Supreme Court held that witnesses who have made a prior identification should not be shown photos of the defendant during trial preparation, neither new photos of the defendant for the first time nor, absent good reason, the same photos they previously reviewed. If a party can demonstrate a good reason to show witnesses a photo of the defendant they previously identified, the party must prepare and disclose a written record of what occurred. If, however, a witness has not previously identified a suspect, investigators can conduct an identification procedure during pretrial preparation in accordance with the principles set forth in State v. Henderson. In this case, the court remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing under United States v. Wade to determine the admissibility of the identification evidence. View "State v. Washington" on Justia Law

Above All Termite & Pest Control ("Above All") employed Henry Keim as a salaried pest-control technician and provided him with an employer authorized vehicle for work use. Above All’s policy limited the quantity of supplies technicians could keep in their authorized vehicles overnight. When technicians needed to replenish supplies, Above All authorized them to drive their vehicles to Above All’s shop instead of driving directly to a worksite, to retrieve whatever they required, and then to go from the shop to the scheduled sites. On the morning of the accident, Keim clocked in, received his schedule, and concluded that his vehicle lacked sufficient supplies. On his way to the shop for supplies, Keim sustained injuries in a car accident. The Judge of Compensation dismissed Keim’s claim petition with prejudice, concluding that Keim was merely commuting to work when he sustained injuries. The Appellate Division applied the “authorized vehicle rule” and reversed the dismissal order. The New Jersey Supreme Court concurred with the appellate court, finding Keim was “in the course of employment” under the “authorized vehicle rule” at the time of the accident because Above All authorized a vehicle for him to operate and his operation of that identified vehicle was for business expressly authorized by Above All. View "Keim v. Above All Termite & Pest Control" on Justia Law

On April 28, 2020, defendant Amandeep Tiwana, while driving in Jersey City, struck a police officer and collided with two police cruisers. Defendant and three injured officers were transported to Jersey City Medical Center. Defendant’s blood alcohol content was 0.268%, three times the legal limit. Detective Anthony Espaillat of the Regional Collision Investigation Unit of the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office arrived at the hospital and spoke first to the injured officers in the emergency room. Two uniformed police officers were stationed outside the curtain separating defendant’s bed from other patients. Detective Espaillat walked up to defendant’s bed, introduced himself as a detective with the Prosecutor’s Office, and explained that he was assigned to investigate the accident. Espaillat testified that, as soon as he had spoken, defendant immediately complained of chest pain and said “she only had two shots prior to the crash.” Espaillat directed defendant not to make any other statements. He clarified that he did not come to the hospital to ask her questions and that he wanted to interview her at a later date at the Prosecutor’s Office. The entire interaction lasted “less than five minutes.” The next day, defendant went to the Prosecutor’s Office and invoked her Miranda rights. The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court consideration was whether the detective’s self-introduction to defendant at her bedside in the hospital initiated a custodial interrogation or its functional equivalent warranting the administration of Miranda warnings. Pretrial, the State moved to admit defendant’s statement at the hospital. The trial court denied the State’s motion and the Appellate Division affirmed. Both courts found that a custodial interrogation occurred at the hospital and the detective’s failure to give Miranda warnings rendered defendant’s statement inadmissible. The Supreme Court reversed: defendant was in custody at the hospital in light of the police presence around her bed area. But no interrogation or its functional equivalent occurred before her spontaneous and unsolicited admission. Miranda warnings were therefore not required, and defendant’s statement -- that she “only had two shots prior to the crash” -- was admissible at trial. View "New Jersey v. Tiwana" on Justia Law

Defendants “Divina” and “Javier” were parents to “Ignacio,” born in 2015; “Josefina,” born in 2016; “Antonia,” born in 2019; and “Ian,” born in 2020. The record reflected extensive evidence of domestic violence involving Divina and Javier. In July 2018, the trial court granted the Division of Child Protection and Permanency care, custody, and supervision of Ignacio and Josefina, citing concerns about continuing domestic violence, Divina’s inability to provide a safe environment for the children, and Divina’s mental health. Antonia and Ian were each removed from the home shortly after birth. Ignacio and Josefina were placed together in a resource home; Antonia and Ian were each placed in different resource homes. The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether trial courts could still consider the relationships between children and resource families under the fourth prong of the best interests of the child test, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4), despite a 2021 Amendment that precluded consideration of those relationships under the test’s second prong, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(2). The Court concluded that the New Jersey Legislature did not intend to bar trial courts from considering evidence of the child’s relationship with the resource family when addressing the fourth prong of N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a). The Court determined the trial court properly considered the relationships between the children and their resource families, and its determination as to all four prongs of the test were grounded in substantial and credible evidence in the record. View "DCPP v. D.C.A. and J.J.C.B." on Justia Law

In New Jersey v. Olenowski ("Olenowski I"), 253 N.J. 133 (2023), the New Jersey Supreme Court adopted for criminal cases a non-exclusive, multi-factor test for the reliability of expert testimony patterned after the standard established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The issue presented in this case involves whether Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) testimony was reliable and admissible under that standard. The Court also considered the appropriate standard of review for Daubert-based expert reliability determinations in criminal appeals. Defendant Michael Olenowski was convicted of drug-impaired driving based in part on DRE evidence. His convictions were upheld on appeal, and the Supreme Court granted certification to determine whether DRE testimony was admissible under the “general acceptance” admissibility standard established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Finding that the record was not sufficient to make that determination, the Court asked a Special Master to conduct a hearing. The Special Master concluded that DRE evidence should be admissible under Frye. In Olenowski I, the Court adopted a “Daubert-type standard” for determining the reliability of expert evidence in criminal and quasi-criminal cases and remanded this matter to the Special Master to apply that standard. After remand, the Special Master concluded that the twelve-step DRE protocol satisfied the reliability standard of N.J.R.E. 702 when analyzed under the methodology-based Daubert standard. The Supreme Court concluded after review that Daubert-based expert reliability determinations in criminal appeals would be reviewed de novo, while other expert admissibility issues were reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Here, the Court found the extensive record substantiated that DRE testimony sufficiently satisfied the Daubert criteria to be admissible, enumerating four limitations and safeguards to be followed in such analysis. View "New Jersey v. Olenowski" on Justia Law