Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Zarik Rose was incarcerated in 1995 on charges relating to the to the attempted murder of Charles Mosely. While awaiting trial, Defendant allegedly told one of the State's witnesses against him that he wanted to have Mosely "whacked," and that Defendant solicited the witness to kill Mosely. The State moved to admit Defendant's comments at trial. The trial court found some of the evidence admissible as "res gestae." During the trial, the court provided instructions to guide the jury's use of that evidence. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that, among other things, all evidence relating to his incarceration on attempted murder charges was improperly admitted at trial. In this appeal, the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed Defendant's conviction, finding that the trial court appropriately instructed the jury on use of the admitted statements. However, by this case, the Court ended the practice of using "res gestae" as an explanation for the admission of evidence: "[e]vidence of uncharged misconduct that is not intrinsic evidence of the crime is inadmissible unless proffered for a proper purpose. ... The Court direct[ed] trial courts to make the Rules of Evidence the touchstone for the analysis of all bad acts categories of res gestae evidence, and disapproves further use of res gestae to support evidential rulings." View "New Jersey v. Rose" on Justia Law

Defendant stated he could not perform field sobriety tests because of a handicap. After failed attempts, he was arrested. At headquarters officers read Miranda warnings and a standard statement that the law requires breath samples and that a separate summons will issue for refusal. The statement provides that any ambiguous or conditional response will be treated as a refusal; if a defendant remains silent or indicates that he has a right to remain silent, wishes to consult an attorney or other person, or if the response is ambiguous or conditional, the officer shall read an additional statement. The defendant consented and indicated that he understood instructions. He twice provided samples that were not of sufficient length or volume. An officer told defendant that if he did not give a long continuous breath, it would be considered a refusal. When defendant again failed, he was charged with violation of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2. Law Division held that the officer was not required to read the additional statement; Appellate Division reversed. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction. Defendant unequivocally consented to the test; his failures to provide the necessary volume and length of samples did not render his consent ambiguous or conditional. Defendant was not entitled to the additional statement.

Defendant R.T.âs nephew lived with him between 1997 and 2003. In 2004, the nephew told his mother that Defendant had sexually assaulted him multiple times. The mother reported the allegations. Defendant voluntarily presented himself to the prosecutorâs office, was advised of the allegations, received Miranda warnings, and waived his rights. During the audiotaping of his statement, Defendant denied the allegations. However, he âconfessedâ to having a drinking problem, and that if he had abused his nephew, it âprobablyâ would have been while he was intoxicated. Defendant was indicted on counts of aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant moved to suppress his statement, but the trial court denied his motion. Defendantâs confession and taped statement, and the nephewâs videotaped statement were admitted into evidence at trial. After the close of the case, the court called the parties together to discuss jury instructions. The judge asked about a âvoluntary intoxicationâ charge. Defense counsel objected, asserting that Defendant never used âvoluntary intoxicationâ as a defense, and didnât want that matter brought up for the jury to consider. The judge found that Defendant himself âopened the doorâ to the intoxication issue in his audiotaped confession. The court used the âvoluntary intoxicationâ instruction in its charge to the jury. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and Defendant was sentenced to a 25-year custodial term. The appellate court was split in its decision, but reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. The majority concluded that Defendantâs own statements in his audiotaped statement were too vague for a jury to conclude he intended his actions against his nephew. The court also noted that the jury instruction should be given over counselâs objection when the evidence deems it appropriate to do so. With the Supreme Court being equally divided as the appellate court, it affirmed the appellate courtâs decision to reverse the decision in the case and remand it for a new trial.