Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Bennie Anderson was employed by Jersey City in the Tax Assessor’s office. His position gave him the opportunity to alter property tax descriptions without the property owner filing a formal application with the Zoning Board. In December 2012, defendant accepted a $300 bribe in exchange for altering the tax description of a property from a two-unit dwelling to a three-unit dwelling. Defendant retired from his position in March 2017 and was granted an early service retirement pension. In November 2017, defendant pled guilty in federal court to violating 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), interference with commerce by extortion under color of official right. Defendant was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered to pay a fine. Based on defendant’s conviction, the Employees’ Retirement System of Jersey City reduced his pension. The State filed an action in state court to compel the total forfeiture of defendant’s pension pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1. The trial court entered summary judgment for the State, finding that the forfeiture of defendant’s pension did not implicate the constitutional prohibitions against excessive fines because the forfeiture of pension benefits did not constitute a fine. The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the State, but on different grounds, concluding the forfeiture of defendant’s pension was a fine, but that requiring defendant to forfeit his pension was not excessive. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded forfeiture of defendant’s pension under N.J.S.A. 43:1-3.1 did not constitute a fine for purposes of an excessive-fine analysis under the Federal or New Jersey State Constitutions. Because the forfeiture was not a fine, the Court did not reach the constitutional analysis for excessiveness. View "New Jersey v. Anderson" on Justia Law

In the twin cases before the New Jersey Supreme Court in consolidated appeals, officers engaged in pretextual stops: they stopped each defendant because part of the license plate was covered; as the arresting officer in Roman-Rosado candidly conceded, though, the purpose of the stop was to try to develop a criminal investigation. The police found contraband in both cases -- drugs in one matter and a gun in the other -- which formed the grounds for defendants’ convictions. Defendants argued that, if read expansively, statute at issue here, N.J.S.A. 39:3-33, prohibited drivers of motor vehicles with license plate frames or identification marker holders, that conceal or otherwise obscures any part of any marking imprinted on the vehicle’s registration plate. Defendants contended this statute was unconstitutionally vague and overly broad, and also invited discriminatory enforcement. The Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 required all markings on a license plate be legible or identifiable. If a frame conceals or obscures a marking in a way that it cannot reasonably be identified or discerned, the driver would be in violation of the law. In practice, if a registration letter or number was not legible, the statute would apply; but if a phrase like “Garden State” was partly covered but still recognizable, there would be no violation. Under that standard, defendant Darius Carter’s license plate frame, which covered the phrase “Garden State” entirely, violated the law, so the stop was lawful. In contrast, defendant Miguel Roman-Rosado’s plate frame did not cover “Garden State.” It partially covered only ten or fifteen percent of the slogan, which was still fully legible, so the stop was unlawful. Because there was no lawful basis to stop Roman-Rosado, evidence seized as a direct result of his stop had to be suppressed. View "New Jersey v. Carter" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review in this case was whether defendant Paulino Njango, whose time in prison exceeded the permissible custodial term authorized by his sentence, was entitled to have the excess prison time he served reduce the period of parole supervision he had to serve under the New Jersey No Early Release Act (NERA). The post-conviction relief court found that the excess time Njango served in custody was “unfortunate” but could not “be given back.” The Appellate Division affirmed, determining that the period of Njango’s NERA parole supervision could not be reduced, even though “[Njango] was imprisoned longer than he should have been due to a failure to properly award” him prior service credits. The Supreme Court reversed. "We do not agree that relief cannot be granted to Njango. The fundamental fairness doctrine is an integral part of the due process guarantee of Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution, which protects against arbitrary and unjust government action." The Court held that the excess time that Njango erroneously served in prison had to be credited to reduce the period of his parole supervision. The case was remanded to the New Jersey Parole Board for a calculation of the excess time Njango served in prison and a credit toward his period of parole supervision. View "New Jersey v. Njango" on Justia Law

Nicholas Mirov disappeared in 1975, and defendant Craig Szemple told members of Mirov’s family that he had driven Mirov to a bus station so that Mirov could go to New York City. Four months after Mirov disappeared, police discovered a body in the woods. Police did not identify the body until sixteen years later, when defendant’s brother, under questioning about a different homicide, revealed defendant’s prior admission to killing Mirov. The issue presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court centered on whether the State could be compelled to search its file to determine the existence of information in a post-conviction context, where defendant sought to obtain any statements or reports memorializing any interviews with his ex-wife, Theresa Boyle, that may have occurred after a letter admitting to the 1975 murder of Mirov, believed to be written by defendant, was produced by Theresa’s father in 1992, during defendant’s first trial for Mirov’s murder. Defendant’s first trial ended in a mistrial, and he was re-tried in 1994. The State admitted into evidence the letter, testimony by a handwriting expert that defendant authored the letter, the .32 caliber bullets found lodged in the victim’s neck and the base of the tree where the victim’s remains were found, and the testimony of defendant’s brother that (a) his family kept a .32 caliber handgun in the family store where defendant worked, and (b) that defendant confessed to shooting the victim. The Supreme Court held that because defendant was aware of the letter, and the circumstances relevant to this appeal for nearly twenty-five years, yet provided no evidence -- and made almost no effort to uncover evidence -- that police interviewed Theresa after production of the letter, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s post-conviction discovery request. View "New Jersey v. Szemple" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's consideration was whether defendant Zakariyya Ahmad’s statement to police -- which occurred when defendant was 17 years old and without his being advised of his Miranda rights -- was properly admitted at his trial for multiple offenses related to the murder of a cafe owner in Newark, New Jersey. The Appellate Division affirmed, agreeing that defendant was questioned as “part of an investigatory procedure rather than a custodial interrogation” and that Miranda was therefore not implicated. The Supreme Court found admission of the statement was harmful error: a reasonable 17-year-old in defendant’s position would have believed he was in custody and not free to leave, so Miranda warnings were required. View "New Jersey v. Ahmad" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Baffi Simmons and the African American Data and Research Institute (collectively, AADARI) submitted a request under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) to defendants Millville City Clerk Wendy Mercado, the City of Millville, and the City of Millville Police Department (collectively, MPD) for complaint-summonses, known as CDR-1s, for certain classes of drug-related offenses. In this appeal, the issue presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether a records request for complaint-summonses from a municipal police department was proper under OPRA. The key question was whether the complaint-summonses -- electronic records populated with information by local police officers but stored on Judiciary servers -- were the police department’s government records under OPRA and, if so, whether the records request at issue here was sufficiently narrow. The Supreme Court found that because MPD officers created the information contained in the CDR-1s, the CDR-1s fell well within OPRA’s definition of a government record. Further, AADARI’s records request was narrowly tailored and would not constitute research beyond OPRA’s scope. View "Simmons v. Mercado" on Justia Law

In connection with a 2014 shooting, defendant David Chavies was charged with murder, aggravated assault, and weapons offenses. In June 2016, defendant pled guilty to second-degree aggravated assault based on accomplice liability. His prison intake form indicated that his health was poor and that he suffered from asthma, sickle cell anemia, and a heart murmur. Defendant was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment with an 85% period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act (NERA). In May 2020, defendant filed a Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) motion for release from custody and, in the alternative, sought a judicial furlough until the COVID-19 pandemic subsided. Defendant provided voluminous medical documents in support of his motion showing he had been undergoing treatment for his ailments. The court determined that defendant was barred from relief under Rule 3:21-10(b)(2) because he had not yet served 85% of his sentence, the period of parole ineligibility, as mandated by NERA. Finding no reversible error, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "New Jersey v. Chavies" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on the selection process for F.G., a Black male from Newark, New Jersey. F.G. was questioned at sidebar for about a half hour; F.G. told the court he believed he could be a fair and impartial juror. The State challenged F.G. for cause, noting that F.G. “has an awful lot of background” and “uses all of the lingo about, you know, the criminal justice system.” A second prosecutor voiced concern that F.G.’s “close friends hustle, engaged in criminal activity” because “[t]hat draws into question whether [F.G.] respects the criminal justice system” and his role as a juror. The trial court denied the State’s motion. After the court’s ruling, the prosecution ran a criminal history check on F.G. The next day, the court explained the prosecutor “came to see me yesterday” and revealed that there were “warrants out for F.G.” and that “[t]hey were going to lock him up.” Afterward, the State renewed its application to remove F.G. for cause. Defense counsel expressed concern about tainting the jury. The prosecutor replied that “the State is not in the habit of . . .looking at a random juror’s” criminal history, and then reiterated concerns the State had voiced the day before to explain why it ran a background check. Defendant Edwin Andujar was convicted as charged. On appeal, he argued he was denied the right to a fair trial because racial discrimination infected the jury selection process. In doing so, the Supreme Court addressed for the first time when a criminal history check could be run on a prospective juror. The New Jersey Supreme Court found nothing in the record that justified the State's decision to selectively focus on F.G. and investigate only his criminal record. "Based on all of the circumstances, the Court infers that F.G.’s removal from the jury panel may have stemmed from implicit or unconscious bias on the part of the State, which can violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial in the same way that purposeful discrimination can." The Court therefore reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial. View "New Jersey v. Andujar" on Justia Law

Raquel Ramirez and Jorge Orozco were charged with murder and endangering the welfare of a child in connection with the death of their two-year-old daughter and tried jointly. The prosecution argued in part that defendants were equally responsible for the many injuries their daughter suffered, including the blunt-force head trauma that caused her death, by failing to prevent those injuries. In keeping with that theory of the case, the court instructed the jury on the elements of N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6(c)(1)(c), which governed accomplice liability for the failure to prevent the commission of an offense when under a legal duty to do so. In preparing the jury charge, the trial court looked to the only precedential authority to address that particular section of the accomplice liability statute, New Jersey v. Bass, 221 N.J. Super. 466 (App. Div. 1987). The trial court expressed misgivings about the charge approved in Bass, which seemed to the court to create a “real possibility that a defendant can be convicted as an accomplice of murder without striking a blow and without sharing the purposeful intent to kill.” Nevertheless, noting that Bass remained good law, the court derived its charge to accomplice liability for murder directly from that opinion. The jury acquitted both defendants of murder but convicted each of a lesser included offense: Ramirez of second-degree reckless manslaughter, Orozco of first-degree aggravated manslaughter. The jury found both defendants guilty of endangering. The Appellate Division reversed, and vacated both the manslaughter and the endangering convictions of each defendant. After its review, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed as to defendants’ respective manslaughter convictions but reversed as to their convictions for endangerment. Because the jury was improperly instructed as to endangerment, the matter was remanded for a new trial. View "New Jersey v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Defendant Luis Masionet was charged with first-degree murder and other offenses in connection with a September 2016 shooting. After learning that his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, Christopher Romero, were expecting a child, defendant went to the store in the outlet mall where Romero worked, pulled out a handgun, and fatally shot Romero. Trial was scheduled to start in late 2017. By then, defendant had been represented by the same assistant deputy public defender for fifteen months. Right before jury selection was to begin, defendant asked the court for an adjournment, stating that, although he would have stayed with his attorney “all the way to the end” if he had taken a plea, “I cannot go to trial with [appointed counsel]” because she had tried only two cases in her career, neither of which were murder trials. The trial judge denied the adjournment request and indicated that appointed counsel would represent defendant through trial. The case proceeded to trial, and the jury convicted defendant on all counts presented. The issue presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review was whether defendant's constitutional right to counsel was denied when, on the day his murder trial was set to begin, he sought an adjournment to see if he could hire a private attorney and his request was denied. Like the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court rejected defendant's claim: "If a trial judge does not conduct the proper analysis...it may be necessary to reverse a conviction and start anew. But defendants are not automatically entitled to a new trial. ...the Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion under the circumstances. We agree and affirm defendant's conviction." View "New Jersey v. Maisonet" on Justia Law