Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

In a matter of first impression, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether a criminal defendant must be provided in-person interpreting services, rather than video remote interpreting (VRI) services, at his jury trial. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court announced amendments to the New Jersey Judiciary’s Language Access Plan (LAP) and expanded the circumstances in which remote interpreting services may be used. Prior to the update, VRI was allowed only for “emergent matters” or “short non-emergent matters of 30 minutes or less.” The 2022 LAP now allows VRI for both “emergent and routine proceedings,” subject to judicial discretion. In 2019, defendant Oscar R. Juracan-Juracan, a native speaker of Kaqchikel -- a language spoken by approximately 450,000 people worldwide -- was charged with several offenses related to an alleged sexual assault. During pre-trial proceedings, he requested a Kaqchikel interpreter and one was provided. The interpreter, however, resided on the West Coast, so he appeared remotely. Additionally, the Kaqchikel interpreter did not speak English, only Kaqchikel and Spanish, so a second interpreter was required to translate to and from Spanish and English. After the court advised counsel that the Kaqchikel interpreter would continue to participate virtually during the jury trial, defendant moved for in-person interpretation services. During the motion hearing, the Kaqchikel interpreter expressed concerns about his ability to provide interpretation services remotely during the trial. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, advising the Kaqchikel interpreter that the court would give him “as much time as you need, understanding the complexities, not only of interpretations, interpreting through two individuals, and also virtually.” The trial court reasoned that proceeding with VRI during the trial was “what’s financially feasible, what’s fair, what’s just.” The Appellate Division denied defendant’s motion for leave to appeal in light of the VRI policy change. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. "In a criminal jury trial, there is a presumption that foreign language interpretation services will be provided in person, which is consistent with the New Jersey Judiciary’s longstanding practice." The Court set forth guidelines and factors to assist trial courts in deciding whether VRI should be used during criminal jury trials, and it remanded this matter for the trial court to reconsider whether VRI was appropriate in this case after assessing those factors. View "New Jersey v. Juracan-Juracan" on Justia Law

In November 2017, Defendant Stephen Zadroga was driving over the speed limit when he was involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle. Defendant’s passenger, and best friend, died in the crash. Pursuant to a warrant, the State seized and tested what they thought was Defendant’s blood. The blood alcohol content (BAC) came back as 0.376%, more than four times the legal limit. Relying on that evidence, the grand jury charged Defendant with aggravated manslaughter, death by auto, and three counts of driving while intoxicated. After the nurse who drew defendant’s blood testified for the State at trial, the State realized that the blood they believed to be Defendant’s had actually come from a person who had died seven months before the accident. After the State discovered the error, Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice because the grand jury had relied on false testimony to indict him. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion as to the counts of driving while intoxicated but denied the motion as to counts one and two, aggravated manslaughter and death by auto. The court found that allowing Defendant to be retried on the counts unrelated to intoxication would not violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause both because he consented to the trial’s termination and because there was a manifest necessity to terminate the trial. The Appellate Division affirmed on manifest necessity grounds, adding that while the State could present counts one and two to a new grand jury, it could not present any evidence that defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the collision. Defendant appealed, arguing that a retrial, even on the counts unrelated to intoxication, was barred by both the New Jersey and federal constitutions. Finding no constitutional violation, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Jersey v. Zadroga" on Justia Law

Defendant Jason O’Donnell was a candidate for mayor of Bayonne, New Jersey in 2018. During the campaign, he allegedly accepted $10,000 in cash in a paper Baskin- Robbins bag from an individual. The State argued that in exchange for the money, defendant promised to appoint the individual as tax counsel for the city. The State charged defendant under the bribery statute. Defendant did not win the election. He contended the applicable statute did not apply to him because it did not cover candidates who accepted improper payments but were not elected. The trial court dismissed the indictment, finding that N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2(d) did not apply to defendant. The Appellate Division reversed. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed: the bribery statute applied to any “person” who accepts an improper benefit -- incumbents, candidates who win, and candidates who lose. The statute also expressly states that it is no defense to a prosecution if a person “was not qualified to act.” View "New Jersey v. O’Donnell" on Justia Law

Leander Williams pled guilty to non-violent third- and fourth-degree drug offenses. His primary parole eligibility date was approximately eight months after the New Jersey Earn Your Way Out Act (EYWO Act) became effective. During his prison sentence, Williams successfully completed multiple alcohol and drug rehabilitation programs, including an 87-day Alcoholics Anonymous program and a residential program in the "Bo Robinson" for 187 days. After the Bo Robinson program and while remaining in the custody of the Department of Corrections, Williams resided at the Harbor Residential Community Release Program for 90 days for further rehabilitation. Approximately one month before his primary parole eligibility date, a panel of the Parole Board certified that Williams met the “criteria for administrative parole release” under the EYWO Act, which entitled him to automatic administrative parole release. The panel imposed 21 general parole conditions and the “special” condition that Williams participate in an RTP for a minimum term of 180 days. Williams administratively appealed to the Parole Board, arguing that N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59 precluded the panel from requiring an RTP as a condition of his administrative parole release under the EYWO Act. The panel upheld the imposition of residential treatment but recommended that the Board reduce his mandated “term” of 180 days to 90 days. Williams appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Parole Board’s determination. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Parole Board could not mandate participation in an RTP for inmates administratively paroled under the EYWO Act. "Although N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.59 generally authorizes the Parole Board to impose parole conditions on adult inmates who have been administratively released under the EYWO Act, an RTP is not among the conditions that can be imposed in that setting." View "Williams v. New Jersey State Parole Board" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal before the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether defendant Dante Allen was denied a fair trial because the trial court permitted a detective to present lay opinion testimony in which he narrated a video recording. According to defendant’s trial testimony, he was carrying a handgun he had recently acquired after a confrontation with a gang member made him fear for his safety. Officer Terrence McGhee suspected defendant had a weapon based on his behavior when McGhee passed in a patrol car, approached defendant and asked to speak. According to McGhee, defendant ran into a vacant lot, turned around, raised his gun, and fired at McGhee. McGhee testified that he then fired at and wounded defendant. Defendant was ultimately arrested and taken to a hospital. Shortly thereafter, Detective Michael Campanella, the lead forensic detective in the case, arrived at the scene. He inspected the gun and reviewed two surveillance videos from nearby buildings. During defendant’s trial, McGhee testified, in part narrating the videos as they were played for the jury. Campanella testified later, describing the steps taken in the investigation. After the State indicated its intent to replay the surveillance videos that the jury had already viewed during McGhee’s testimony, defense counsel objected. The State countered that Campanella would explain how the video “led him [to find] evidence, such as the shell casings and the bullets.” The trial court overruled the objection. The jury convicted defendant of attempted murder and other offenses. The Appellate Division found that the trial court had abused its discretion when it permitted Campanella to narrate the surveillance video but held that the error was harmless and affirmed. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the trial court should have excluded all the detective’s narration of the surveillance video. The Supreme Court found the trial court properly permitted the detective to testify about the manner in which he used the surveillance video to guide his investigation. But the detective’s testimony opining that the video showed defendant turning and firing his weapon should have been excluded from evidence. However, the Court found that error was harmless given the strength of the State’s evidence. View "New Jersey v. Allen" on Justia Law