Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2004, an argument escalated into an altercation which left Julio Colon dead. Defendant Reynaldo Galicia and Hector Cordero drove from Vineland to Newark to confront Colon about a sport utility vehicle (SUV) that he had borrowed but failed to return. Cordero implored Colon to renew a romantic relationship the two shared, and both Cordero and Defendant begged Colon to return to Vineland with them. The three men battled over the keys to the SUV, and Colon exchanged punches and kicks with Cordero and Defendant. With Cordero in the passenger seat, Defendant twice drove his car toward Colon, prompting Colon to climb on the hood of the car and bang his fists on the window. As Colon clung to the car, Defendant accelerated and drove several blocks, running a stop sign. Defendant abruptly stopped the car, and Colon fell from the hood to the pavement. He sustained severe head injuries and died a week later. Tried separately from Cordero, Defendant was convicted by a jury of aggravated manslaughter, second-degree aggravated assault, disorderly persons theft and weapons charges. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Appellate Division. At issue was New Jersey's "passion/provocation" statute. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the facts of this case, as developed in the trial record, did not support passion/provocation finding under the statute. The Court further held that the verdict sheet used at trial incorrectly guided the jury in its consideration of the passion/provocation issue, and reversed that portion of the Appellate Division's decision that deemed the sheet not to constitute error ("[n]otwithstanding the trial court's correct instruction to the jury that it could not find Defendant guilty of murder unless it concluded that passion/provocation did not apply, the verdict sheet improperly directed the jury not to consider the issue of passion/provocation unless it had already reached a guilty verdict on the murder charge." The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision that rejected Defendant's belated invocation of self-defense as a defense to the charges against him. View "New Jersey v. Galicia" on Justia Law

The issue in this appeal was whether Defendant Buddy Randolph should have been permitted, at the remand for his resentencing, to present evidence of his rehabilitative efforts between his initial sentencing and resentencing. This case involved five multiple-count indictments against Defendant arising from separate handgun-related incidents. In exchange for the State's dismissal of the remaining counts, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second-degree aggravated assault, one count of third-degree aggravated assault, five counts of third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, and other weapons offenses. At the time of sentencing in 2002, Defendant was twenty years old, had not completed high school, and had a serious, untreated substance abuse problem. He had been arrested twelve times over a two-year period and had an extensive juvenile history. The court found that there were no mitigating factors; that aggravating factors three and nine applied (risk Defendant will reoffend and need to deter Defendant and others, and that those factors supported imposing a term greater than the presumptive on each count. The court imposed three consecutive maximum term sentences but did not include its reasons on the record. Defendant appealed and the matter was remanded for resentencing. The trial court re-imposed the same sentences. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence should be remanded again for a reweighing of aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether three consecutive maximum terms were justified. Upon review by the Supreme Court, the Court concluded that when a trial court reconsiders a sentence, it should view Defendant as he stands before the court on that day unless the remand order specifies a different and more limited resentencing proceeding such as correction of a plainly technical error or a directive to view the sentencing issue from the vantage point of the original sentencing. The Court did not infer such a limitation in the circumstances of this case; thus, Defendant was entitled to present evidence of his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts at resentencing. View "New Jersey v. Randolph" on Justia Law

Defendants were charged with a series of robberies that took place in Middlesex, Essex, and Bergen Counties. Defendant Alnesha Minitee was apprehended almost immediately after the Bergen County incident, while Defendant Darnell Bland was arrested several months later when one of the victims of the Bergen County crime identified his picture in a photo array. When Minitee was arrested, she was standing next to a red SUV that the police had followed from the robbery scene. The search of that vehicle produced evidence linking the parties to the series of robberies. Defendants Bland and Minitee both moved to suppress the results of that search but were unsuccessful. At the trial of Defendant Minitee, which led to her conviction, the State introduced evidence that was obtained during the search of the SUV. The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court was whether, in the circumstances of this case, evidence obtained from the warrantless vehicle search conducted after the vehicle was towed to police headquarters should have been suppressed. Upon review, the Court held that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court correctly denied the Defendants' motion to suppress because the warrantless search of the SUV that was involved in the robbery fit within the scope of the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement. View "New Jersey v. Minitee" on Justia Law

In 2003, twelve year old C.A. engaged in instant message conversations with seventeen adult men; communications with six of those men included sexually explicit language. In her instant messages, C.A. did not mention Defendant or report any history of sexual abuse. Instead, C.A. laced her communications with sexual vulgarities in an attempt to impersonate a sexually experienced adult. C.A.'s mother discovered the instant messages. At a meeting attended by C.A.'s school guidance counselor, her parents, and her homeroom teacher, C.A., for the first time, accused Defendant of sexual abuse. Defendant was subsequently indicted on one count of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, six counts of second-degree sexual assault, and three counts of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child. Some of these charges related to Defendant's former stepdaughter and the trials were ultimately severed. Defendant consistently maintained that his relationship with C.A. was entirely appropriate and denied any sexual abuse. Defendant moved to compel production of C.A.'s instant messages. The trial court found that the instant messages were protected and permitted their limited use at trial only for the limited purpose of explaining a physical injury to C.A. in the event that the State were to proffer an expert to prove such injury. The trial court also ruled that the fact that C.A. had sent and received explicit messages could be admitted to show that C.A.'s allegations "did not arise until the victim had been officially confronted by the authorities." A jury convicted Defendant on the single count of first-degree sexual assault and three counts of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant was sentenced to a twenty-year prison term with a ten-year period of parole ineligibility for the single count of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, and a concurrent ten-year prison sentence for the remaining counts. In 2011, an Appellate Division panel affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's petition for certification "limited to the issue of whether Defendant should have been permitted to introduce the sexually explicit content of the instant messages sent by the minor, female victim to other adult males." Upon review, the Court held that the content of the instant messages written by and to the victim in this case constituted "sexual conduct" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7(f), and that content was therefore protected by New Jersey's Rape Shield Law. Any probative value of the content of the victim's messages was substantially outweighed by its prejudice. View "New Jersey v. J.A.C." on Justia Law

In June 2005, police discovered Defendant Juan Pablo Santos naked and in bed with a fourteen-year-old girl. He was arrested and, after receiving "Miranda" warnings, admitted that he lived with the girl and that they had an ongoing sexual relationship. Santos was indicted by a grand jury on one count of second-degree sexual assault and one count of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child. The State proposed a plea agreement under which Santos would plead guilty to third-degree endangering the welfare of a child in exchange for the State’s agreement to drop the sexual assault charge and recommend that his term of imprisonment be limited to time served. After consulting with his attorney , Defendant decided to accept the deal. Less than three weeks after Defendant was sentenced according to the terms of the plea agreement he negotiated with the State, the United States Department of Homeland Security removed him to Mexico based on this criminal conviction. Defendant illegally reentered the United States. He was found and removed again to Mexico. In 2009, Defendant filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging that he had not read, and his attorney had not explained, the plea form before he signed it, and that his plea lacked an adequate factual basis. The PCR court determined that Defendant's allegations were sufficient to establish a prima facie claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and that Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, which the court scheduled. Before the hearing, Defendant filed a motion seeking leave to testify telephonically from Mexico. The State opposed the motion, pointing out that telephonic testimony would deny the court the opportunity to evaluate Defendant's demeanor and assess his credibility. The court granted Defendant's motion and turned to examine the mechanics of how Defendant's testimony would be taken. The State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the grant of an evidentiary hearing in which Defendant was to be permitted to provide telephonic testimony must be reversed and the matter remanded for full reconsideration by the post-conviction relief (PCR) court as to whether Defendant could meet the standard for entitlement to an evidentiary hearing. View "New Jersey v. Santos" on Justia Law

Shortly before the trial was scheduled to begin, Defendant Marcus King's attorney informed the trial court that Defendant wished to represent himself at his trial. The trial court questioned Defendant with respect to his knowledge of particular areas. At one point during the colloquy, defendant stated: "I am willing to go to trial with what I have prepared for myself. I can’t explain it. I can’t sit and explain it to you in legal terms. But I know in my terms what I am ready to do." The trial court stated that it was not "satisfied" that defendant "fully under[stood] the nature and consequences of this decision." It pointed to the fact that Defendant was unable to state what he had written down while doing research in the law library a few days ago and could not adequately answer the court’s questions about the court rules or the evidence rules. The court found that defendant’s "inability to do that" precluded an intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant’s application and directed that the trial proceed with defense counsel representing defendant. Defendant appealed the trial court's decision, contending that the court improperly denied him the right of self-representation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's examination was insufficient and, as a result, its ultimate determination was flawed. The Court reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "New Jersey v. Marcus King" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court considered whether "Padilla v. Kentucky" (130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010)) could be applied retroactively on collateral review, and whether defendants' attorneys were ineffective under "State v. Nunez-Valdez" (200 N.J. 129 (2009)). In 2004, Defendant Frensel Gaitan was indicted for multiple possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and distribution charges. He pled guilty to the charge of third-degree distribution of a CDS within one thousand feet of a school in 2005, and was sentenced to five years’ probation. Gaitan did not file a direct appeal. In 2008, based on the drug conviction, a removable offense, Gaitan was removed. He thereafter filed a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Although Gaitan had responded "yes" to Question 17 on the plea form, which asked "Do you understand that if you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty," he asserted that counsel failed to warn him that his plea carried with it potential immigration consequences. In 2007, Defendant Rohan Goulbourne was indicted on multiple CDS possession and distribution charges. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of possession of a CDS with intent to distribute within one thousand feet of a school. The prosecutor, in return, recommended a sentence of three years' imprisonment with a fifteen-month period of parole ineligibility. At a March 2008 plea hearing, both defense counsel and the court informed Goulbourne that he "may very well" be deported as a result of the plea. The court also noted that Goulbourne answered all the questions on the plea form, which included Question 17, and that he signed the form after reviewing it with his attorney. Satisfied that Goulbourne knowingly and voluntarily was pleading guilty, the court accepted the plea. The court imposed the recommended sentence, and Goulbourne did not appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "Padilla" represented a new constitutional rule of law that for Sixth Amendment purposes, was not entitled to retroactive application on collateral review. Although "Nunez-Valdez" governs the standard of attorney performance in these cases, the Court concluded Defendants were not entitled to relief under that decision because neither was affirmatively misadvised by their counsel, nor did they establish prejudice. View "New Jersey v. Gaitan" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court considered whether "Padilla v. Kentucky" (130 S.Ct. 1473 (2010)) could be applied retroactively on collateral review, and whether defendants' attorneys were ineffective under "State v. Nunez-Valdez" (200 N.J. 129 (2009)). In 2004, Defendant Frensel Gaitan was indicted for multiple possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and distribution charges. He pled guilty to the charge of third-degree distribution of a CDS within one thousand feet of a school in 2005, and was sentenced to five years’ probation. Gaitan did not file a direct appeal. In 2008, based on the drug conviction, a removable offense, Gaitan was removed. He thereafter filed a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Although Gaitan had responded "yes" to Question 17 on the plea form, which asked "Do you understand that if you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty," he asserted that counsel failed to warn him that his plea carried with it potential immigration consequences. In 2007, Defendant Rohan Goulbourne was indicted on multiple CDS possession and distribution charges. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of possession of a CDS with intent to distribute within one thousand feet of a school. The prosecutor, in return, recommended a sentence of three years' imprisonment with a fifteen-month period of parole ineligibility. At a March 2008 plea hearing, both defense counsel and the court informed Goulbourne that he "may very well" be deported as a result of the plea. The court also noted that Goulbourne answered all the questions on the plea form, which included Question 17, and that he signed the form after reviewing it with his attorney. Satisfied that Goulbourne knowingly and voluntarily was pleading guilty, the court accepted the plea. The court imposed the recommended sentence, and Goulbourne did not appeal. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that "Padilla" represented a new constitutional rule of law that for Sixth Amendment purposes, was not entitled to retroactive application on collateral review. Although "Nunez-Valdez" governs the standard of attorney performance in these cases, the Court concluded Defendants were not entitled to relief under that decision because neither was affirmatively misadvised by their counsel, nor did they establish prejudice. View "New Jersey v. Goulbourne" on Justia Law

Defendant John Wessells was arrested and charged with various offenses, including first degree conspiracy to commit murder, purposeful or knowing murder by use of a handgun, and first degree attempted murder. He moved to suppress statements he made during two separate interrogations. At a hearing, the focus was on Defendant's waiver of his "Miranda" rights: during his direct testimony, Defendant asserted that when the detectives started asking about the murders, he denied knowing anything about them and asked to speak with a lawyer. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that he had been informed about the purpose of the interrogation and had waived his rights prior to making the statements. However, without explicitly finding that the questioning had stopped based on Defendant's asserted invocation of his right to counsel, the court concluded that the reinitiation of questioning violated Defendant's constitutional rights. The Appellate Division reversed the order suppressing part of Defendant's statements, reasoning that once Defendant was released from custody, he was afforded an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel. Once investigators reinitiated questioning, Defendant was again advised of his rights, and that his waiver was knowing and voluntary. After the New Jersey Supreme Court accepted certiorari, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Maryland v. Shatzer," (130 S. Ct. 1213). Because Defendant had not been tried for the crimes with which he had been charged, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded Defendant was entitled to the benefit of the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Maryland v. Shatzer,"and the statements he made during his second interrogation should have been suppressed. View "New Jersey v. Wessells" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Roland Davis had been a resident of the Devereux New Jersey Center (operated by Defendant Devereux Foundation) since shortly before his twelfth birthday. Plaintiff was diagnosed with autism, mental retardation, pervasive developmental disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and had a history of combative and aggressive behavior. Plaintiff's mother (as his guardian) filed a complaint alleging breach of a "non-delegable duty" to protect Plaintiff from harm, negligent care and supervision, and vicarious liability after a counselor assaulted Plaintiff. The trial court granted Devereux's motion for summary judgment, finding that to the extent claims were for negligence, they were barred by the Charitable Immunity Act (CIA). The court further concluded that New Jersey law does not compel imposing a "non-delegable duty" upon Devereux. The Appellate Division affirmed in part, also finding no "non-delegable duty," and reversed in part, holding that a reasonable jury could find that the counselor acted in part within the scope of her employment. The issues on appeal to the Supreme Court were: (1) whether to impose upon an institution that cares for developmentally disabled residents a "non-delegable duty" to protect them from harm caused by employees' intentional acts; and (2) whether the employee in this case could be found to have acted within the scope of her employment when she criminally assaulted the resident, thereby subjecting the non-profit facility to liability pursuant to "respondeat superior." The Court reaffirmed the duty of due care imposed upon caregivers with in loco parentis responsibilities to persons with developmental disabilities. However, applying the analysis set forth and developed by prior opinions, the parties' relationship, the nature of the risk, the opportunity and ability to exercise care, and public policy, the Court concluded the circumstances of this case did not justify imposing on caregivers a "non-delegable duty" to protect residents from harm caused by employees' intentional acts. Furthermore, the Court held that no rational factfinder could find that the Devereux counselor's criminal assault on Plaintiff was conducted within the scope of her employment. View "Davis v. Devereux Foundation" on Justia Law