Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this appeal, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether evidence seized after defendant's arrest, made in the absence of a valid warrant or probable cause, was subject to exclusion without application of an exception based on the subjective good faith of the executing officers, who relied upon an arrest warrant that had been judicially vacated but had not been removed from the computer database showing active warrants. In 2009, a Municipal Court Judge issued a warrant for the arrest of defendant for non-payment of fines owed to the City of Asbury Park. Defendant learned of that warrant while incarcerated in Bayside State Prison on an unrelated charge. He sent a letter to the municipal court requesting that his fines in connection with two matters (a criminal conviction and a motor vehicle violation) be vacated due to hardship. In 2010, another Municipal Court Judge granted defendant's request. The Asbury Park Municipal Court Administrator explained that once the vacation of a fine is entered into the relevant database, the outstanding warrant in that database is also vacated. The municipal court employees, not the police department, are responsible for entering that information. With respect to defendant, the administrator stated that a deputy municipal court administrator properly vacated the traffic fines in the "ATS" system but failed to go into the "ACS" system and vacate the criminal fines there. Therefore, the ACS computer system did not reflect that the criminal fines were vacated, and, correspondingly, the arrest warrant associated with those fines was not vacated. Defendant was later indicted for third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), and second degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized from the police vehicle, contending that the officer's questioning and warrant check were unconstitutional. Following a hearing at which only the arresting officer testified, the court denied defendant's motion. On the eve of trial, defendant asked the court to reopen his suppression motion, relying on a letter from the municipal court which indicated that his fines had been vacated. The court reopened defendant's motion, and, following a hearing at which the municipal court administrator testified, granted the motion to suppress. The court found that defendant was arrested unlawfully, the drugs seized from the vehicle were inadmissible fruits of an unlawful arrest, and that the lack of culpability of the police department was irrelevant. The State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division. "The arresting officer's good faith belief that a valid warrant for defendant's arrest was outstanding cannot render an arrest made in the absence of a valid warrant or probable cause constitutionally compliant." View "New Jersey v. Shannon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court consolidated two appeals in this opinion. J.S. was a thirty-four-year-old former New Jersey resident, who, in 2000, while a sophomore at Kean University, was arrested after twice selling marijuana to an undercover police officer during a five-day period. He pled guilty to a fourth-degree distribution charge arising from a June 16 sale, and a third-degree distribution charge arising from a June 21 sale. J.S. was sentenced to a three-year term of noncustodial probation. Five years after completing his sentence, he filed the expungement petition that was the subject of this appeal. The trial court granted J.S. s petition, reasoning that his two offenses were a single spree that constituted a solitary crime. In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division reversed. G.P.B. was a fifty-two-year-old New Jersey resident and business owner, who, in 1999, committed several offenses in support of a scheme to offer illegal gifts to local officials in a particular municipality, in order to obtain a public contract for his business and a specific vote on a municipal resolution. G.P.B. pled guilty to four offenses: one count of third-degree conspiracy to offer gifts to a public servant and three counts of third-degree offering gifts to a public servant. He was sentenced to a county correctional facility for thirty days and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service and pay a $10,000 fine. G.P.B. petitioned for expungement approximately ten years after his convictions. The trial court granted G.P.B. s petition, reasoning that his crimes were all part of a continuing conspiracy to influence a governing body and achieve a single aim, and that the conspiracy linked the charges together as one crime. In a published opinion, the Appellate Division reversed, noting that G.P.B. had pled guilty to four offenses committed on two separate days, the panel concluded that he was not entitled to expungement. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division in both appeals: "[t]he plain language of N.J.S.A.2C:52-2(a) precludes expungement of convictions when the petitioner has been convicted of multiple crimes, even when those crimes occurred within a short span of time. [. . .] We conclude that, as it is currently drafted, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) does not authorize expungement of the criminal records of individuals who are in the position of petitioners. If the Legislature determines that expungement should be available to such individuals, it can amend the statute to clarify its intent in that regard." View "In the Matter of the Expungement Petition of J.S." on Justia Law

In 2009, Erica Ortiz and a few friends went to a dance club in Newark. Defendant and her boyfriend, Oscar Rodriguez, went to the club that night as well. At about 1:35 a.m., while in the bathroom, defendant got into a fight with Ortiz and her friend, Jessica Machado. A security guard broke up the fight and escorted defendant and Rodriguez out of the club. Ortiz left the club at closing time, around 3:00 a.m., with two friends, Christina Gratacos and Nihar Patel. As the three walked to Patel's car, defendant and Rodriguez drove up to Ortiz and her friends. Rodriguez jumped out of the car and punched Ortiz in the face. Patel, who stepped in to help Ortiz, fought with Rodriguez. Meanwhile, defendant left the car and fought with Ortiz again. Bystanders eventually intervened and broke up the fight. Defendant and Rodriguez then got back in their car, and Rodriguez drove off. Minutes later, they returned. Rodriguez got out of the driver's side of the car and began to fight with Patel again; others also joined in the fight. Ortiz was not involved in this part of the brawl. From the sidewalk, she saw a jacket on the ground that she thought belonged to Patel. She went to pick up the jacket, which was in front of defendant's car. At that moment, defendant moved from the passenger's to the driver's seat, put the car into gear, turned the wheel, and drove into Ortiz. Ortiz became lodged under the car and was dragged about fifty feet. When defendant turned a corner, the back tire ran over Ortiz, who was dislodged from the car. Defendant drove off. A grand jury returned an indictment that charged defendant with several crimes, including first-degree attempted murder, fourth-degree aggravated assault by automobile, and third-degree endangering an injured victim. On appeal, for the first time, defendant argued that the trial judge omitted an element of the offense for endangering: that a defendant's flight increased the risk of further harm to the victim. The Appellate Division disagreed, concluding that the jury charge complied with the law and fully recited the three statutory elements of the offense. The panel found no fourth element under the statute. The panel also found sufficient evidence to support the endangering conviction. Agreeing with the Appellate Division's judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Jersey v. Munafo" on Justia Law

Defendant Dontae Hathaway was charged with second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon following the discovery of a handgun in his room at the Taj Mahal Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City. Defendant moved to suppress the gun, arguing that its discovery was the product of an unconstitutional search. At the suppression hearing, Officer James Armstrong of the Atlantic City Police Department testified that while providing additional security at the casino, he was called to the security podium. Several security officers conveyed that an unidentified hotel patron, who was no longer present at the podium, had reported that two black males robbed him at gunpoint in a room on the 70th floor. A four-member SWAT team arrived. Officer Armstrong was told that video footage showed the unidentified patron on an elevator with a white male, a black male, and two females. It was observed that the elevator stopped on the 70thfloor, and five individuals proceeded to Room 7023. An unidentified patron later left in what appeared to be a panicked state. Concerned that there could be an armed gunman in the casino or barricaded in the room, possibly with hostages or victims, Officer Armstrong, the SWAT team, and casino security officers set themselves up outside Room 7023. When calls to the room, via telephone and orally through the slightly open door, went unanswered, the officers entered with guns drawn. They found neither victims nor a gunman. However, an open duffel bag was on a cabinet by the bed, in which an automatic black Beretta handgun was readily visible. Security determined that the room was registered to defendant, whose name was found on documents inside the bag. The trial court suppressed evidence of the handgun, finding that Officer Armstrong should have viewed the footage himself prior to taking action. It also deemed the unidentified patron's report unreliable, and found that Officer Armstrong improperly relied on hearsay filtered through untrained security personnel. The State moved for leave to appeal, and the Appellate Division affirmed the suppression. Viewing the events as they appeared to an objectively reasonable police officer, and based on the evidence presented by the State at the suppression hearing, the Supreme Court concluded the police acted within the scope of the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement, and the gun should not have been suppressed. View "New Jersey v. Hathaway" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal were the circumstances under which a law enforcement officer may legally enter a disabled vehicle to obtain the driver's registration and insurance information without first requesting the driver's permission or allowing the driver the opportunity to retrieve the documents himself. This became an issue when the officer found a handgun and marijuana inside an open backpack inside the disabled vehicle. Defendant was arrested and subsequently charged with multiple weapons offenses The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence found in the car, finding that the trooper lawfully conducted a search for defendant's credentials and was therefore permitted to seize any evidence discovered in plain view. The Appellate Division disagreed, finding that the trooper never gave defendant the opportunity to present his credentials. Therefore, since the trooper was not lawfully in the viewing area of the contraband, the Appellate Division found that the plain view exception did not apply, and reversed the trial court. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division, finding that the trooper was required to provide defendant with the opportunity to present his credentials before entering the vehicle. "If such an opportunity is presented, and defendant is unable or unwilling to produce his registration or insurance information, only then may an officer conduct a search for those credentials." View "New Jersey v. Keaton" on Justia Law

Police arrived at defendant Evan Reece's home to investigate a dropped 9-1-1 call that originated there. Defendant denied making any such call, and insisted that he was alone in the home, although responding officer Sergeant Delagarza had observed three vehicles in the driveway. Defendant retrieved and displayed his cordless home phone to Delagarza, which did not show any call to 9-1-1 in its memory. Delagarza looked into the house through the front door that defendant had left open, and saw nothing unusual or suspicious. Nevertheless, Delagarza called for a backup, and with defendant present, confirmed with the police dispatcher that the originating number of the call was defendant's home phone number. During these communications, Delagarza noticed a small abrasion on the knuckle of defendant s hand, which Delagarza stated was similar to the result of punching something. Delagarza asked defendant if he was married, and defendant stated that he was, further stating that his marital status was none of Delagarza's business. Delagarza noticed that defendant's demeanor began to change at this point, and he became frustrated with Delagarza's presence and his questioning. Delagarza asked if he could enter the house and look around, but defendant refused consent. Delagarza then called for assistance and told defendant that he and the other officers needed to check the house. Defendant responded by slamming the door closed and attempting to lock it, while the officers pushed the door open. Delagarza announced that defendant was under arrest, and the officers entered defendant s residence. Defendant attempted to block their entry, and a struggle ensued. After being subdued, defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of simple assault, one count of resisting arrest, and one count of obstructing the administration of law. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge held that, under the emergency-aid doctrine, the officers were entitled to enter defendant's home without a warrant. Based on this finding, the court held that defendant's attempt to deny them access constituted obstruction. The court also made specific credibility findings. Defendant was found guilty of one count of simple assault, resisting arrest, and obstruction. Defendant was acquitted of the other count of simple assault. On appeal to the Law Division, defendant was found guilty of resisting arrest and obstruction, and not guilty of simple assault. In a split decision, the Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction for resisting arrest, and reversed the conviction for obstruction, a majority of the panel finding that the emergency-aid doctrine did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the emergency-aid doctrine justified the officers warrantless entry into defendant's home. Furthermore, because the credibility and factual findings of the municipal court and Law Division were supported by substantial evidence, the Court affirmed defendant's conviction for resisting arrest and reinstated defendant's obstruction conviction. View "New Jersey v. Reece" on Justia Law

In 2008, defendant called 9-1-1 requesting assistance for his five-month old daughter, reporting that she was not breathing. When the police arrived, the infant was in an ambulance about to be taken to the hospital. Defendant told a detective that, upon observing his daughter lying in bed, he noticed that she was not breathing. Defendant acceded to the detective's request that he come to the police station to provide further information that may be helpful for his daughter s treatment. Defendant was at the police station for a total of three hours (including breaks), during which he was interviewed for some forty minutes. Defendant told the detective that, earlier in the day, his girlfriend told him that the baby was cranky, and he tried to calm her over several hours. At the conclusion of the interview, the detective drove defendant home. At no time prior to or while at the police station was defendant given Miranda warnings. Defendant's daughter was declared dead three days later. Approximately 7 months later, defendant was arrested, and after being read his Miranda rights, admitted that he tossed the baby toward the bed, causing her to hit the wall. Defendant was subsequently indicted for second-degree manslaughter and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child. The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress his statement, concluding that defendant was in custody at the time of the interview and that his rights were violated when he was not administered Miranda warnings. The court relied on several key factors regarding the detective's interaction with defendant, including the detective's instruction that defendant sit in a certain chair to permit the video camera to obtain a full face view of defendant, the detective's physical proximity to defendant, and the probing nature of the questions that defendant was asked. The court also relied on testimony of witnesses at the evidentiary hearing demonstrating that the detective asked defendant to accompany him to the police station, defendant was placed in the back seat of the unmarked police car, defendant and the detective did not converse during the ride to the police station, and the house was secured to prevent entry by anyone. The trial court found that, under all of the circumstances, no reasonable person in defendant s position would have felt free to leave the room or the police station. The Appellate Division concluded that defendant had not been subjected to a custodial interrogation. The court held that the failure to provide Miranda warnings therefore did not require suppression of defendant's statement. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the interview conducted by the detective at the police station was a custodial interrogation and the failure to administer Miranda warnings prior to the interview required suppression of that recorded statement. View "New Jersey v. Hubbard" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with murder, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, carjacking, kidnapping, felony murder, terroristic threats, tampering with physical evidence, hindering apprehension, and aggravated assault. At trial, Q.M. recanted his statement and claimed that he never witnessed the murder, did not help dispose of the gun, and that a police officer had coerced him into lying. D.C. testified unequivocally that he saw defendant order the victim into the dumpster and then shoot him. As a result of Q.M. s recantation, and the differing accounts D.C. offered in his pretrial statements, the court allowed videotapes of both pretrial statements to be played for the jury in the courtroom. The State suggested, without defense objection, that a DVD player be made available for jurors to view the videotaped statements during deliberations. The trial court granted the request and during summation, the prosecutor urged the jury to watch the videotaped statements of both witnesses. Two days into deliberations, defendant moved for a mistrial on the ground that a juror was tainted and stated that he may have been mistaken when he declined to object to the State's proposal to give jurors access to those statements during deliberations. The court did not remove the DVDs from the jury room, suggesting that doing so after two days of deliberations could be prejudicial to both parties. The jury returned a partial verdict, convicting defendant of everything except murder, carjacking, felony murder and aggravated assault. At defendant s retrial on the remaining counts, the witnesses testified again. D.C. testified that he witnessed the murder and identified defendant as the shooter, but added new details. Q.M. testified that he never witnessed the murder, did not help dispose of the gun, and that police had coerced him into identifying defendant. The court denied the State's request to allow D.C.'s pretrial statements to be allowed into evidence, but allowed the recording of Q.M.'s pretrial statement to be played for the jury. The State later informed the court that it had arranged for the jury to have access to a DVD player in the jury room. Defendant did not object to that procedure. The State again urged the jury to watch the DVD and to note the inconsistencies between Q.M.'s pretrial statement and his testimony on the stand. The jury convicted defendant of murder, carjacking, and felony murder, but acquitted him of aggravated assault. The court imposed an aggregate term of life plus thirty-five years, with a total period of parole ineligibility of more than eighty-five years. An appellate panel reversed, holding that both trial courts committed plain error when they permitted the juries unrestricted access to videotaped statements during deliberations. Given the content of the statements, and the strength of the other evidence presented by the State, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial courts' decisions permitting the juries access to the pretrial statements did not constitute plain error. View "New Jersey v. Weston" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested at a locked, fenced-in parking lot used for storage by an adjoining warehouse operated by Domino Manufacturing. Domino Manufacturing used the lot to store equipment for printing presses, including metal shafts and printing rollers which were kept outside because they were too heavy to be moved inside the warehouse. Defendant was attempting to exit the main gate in a pick-up truck in which the police found bolt cutters, the padlock from the gate, and eleven metal printing rollers. Defendant was charged with third-degree burglary, and disorderly persons possession of a burglary tool. Defendant was tried only on the burglary charge; the charge under the disorderly persons statute was dismissed. At the close of the State's evidence at trial, defendant moved for acquittal on the ground that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the premises that defendant entered was a "structure" as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1, contending that defendant entered a parking lot, which is not a "structure" within the statute. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the fenced-in area was a prohibited space not open to the public, as well as a place adapted for the conduct of Domino Manufacturing's business, and therefore it constituted a "structure." Defendant was convicted of third-degree burglary, and sentenced to five years in prison. He appealed, challenging the trial court's conclusion that the fenced-in parking lot was a "structure." Finding no error in the trial court's analysis, the Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. View "New Jersey v. Olivero" on Justia Law

Two indictments were pending against defendant Aakash Dalal. The first charged defendant with a series of offenses directed against four synagogues and a Jewish community center. The second charged defendant with conspiracy to murder the assistant prosecutor, conspiracy to possess a firearm, and terroristic threats after a jailhouse informant's tip lead law enforcement to obtain a search warrant of his cell and found handwritten documents, including a chart of ENEMIES that listed the criminal presiding judge as a high profile enemy and the assistant prosecutor on defendant s case as a tactical enemy. Defendant moved to dismiss both indictments and sought to recuse the presiding judge. After the State observed that the evidence provided a significant reason for the court to recuse itself, the presiding judge transferred the proceedings to a third judge (the trial court). The trial court subsequently denied defendant's motions to recuse the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office and for a change of venue based on pretrial publicity. The Appellate Division granted defendant s motion for leave to appeal and reversed. Although the panel was "confident" the trial judge could actually preside fairly and impartially, it concluded that the appearance of fairness in the future proceedings will be impaired so long as a Bergen judge presided over the matter. The panel remanded the matter to the assignment judge to either transfer the matter to another vicinage or arrange to have a judge from another vicinage preside over the case. The assignment judge transferred the matter to an adjacent county. The Court granted the State's motion for leave to appeal. As part of its consideration, the Supreme Court noted two relevant developments since the motion was first addressed: neither the presiding judge nor the judge who ruled on defendant's bail served in the adjacent Bergen Vicinage. Effective May 1, 2015, the presiding judge was assigned to the Passaic Vicinage, Civil Division for reasons unrelated to this matter. The other judge retired in August 2014. "Not all threats or efforts to intimidate a judge will require recusal." But the Supreme Court felt that given the serious nature of the threat, the absence of any proof of manipulation, the potential introduction of the evidence in one of the trials, and the relationships among judges within the Bergen Vicinage, a reasonable, fully informed observer could have doubts about a Bergen County judge's impartiality. The matter was remanded to the Bergen County assignment judge for further proceedings. View "New Jersey v. Dalal" on Justia Law