Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2017, police questioned defendant Laura Gonzalez -- after providing her with her Miranda warnings -- in connection with the discovery that the infant for whom she served as a nanny had two fractures in his right leg and one in his left. In the middle of the interview, defendant asked, “But now what do I do about an attorney and everything?” Rather than seek clarification, the interviewing detective merely advised defendant, “That is your decision. I can’t give you an opinion about anything.” Ultimately, defendant admitted to abusing the child and, at the interviewing detective’s suggestion, wrote his parents an apology note. Defendant was charged with endangerment and aggravated assault. She moved to suppress portions of her statement and the note, arguing that she invoked her right to counsel during her interview. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, reasoning that defendant’s statement did not rise to the level of being an assertion of her right to counsel -- not even an ambiguous assertion of that right, which would have triggered a duty for the interviewing officer to seek clarification under New Jersey law. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded defendant’s question about the attorney was an ambiguous invocation of her right to counsel and that, under settled New Jersey law, the detective was required to cease questioning and clarify whether defendant was requesting counsel during the interview. "And, because the State played defendant’s recorded statement at trial and read the apology note -- written at the detective’s suggestion -- to the jury," the Court found the error to be harmful. View "New Jersey v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

While surveilling a street corner in Newark, two detectives observed several men loitering in the area. A detective testified that one of the individuals, later identified as defendant Tywaun Hedgespeth, adjusted his clothes, at which point officers saw what looked like the butt of a gun. Backup units were told to apprehend the men and to be cautious with defendant. A detective apprehended defendant, ordered him to show his hands, took him to the ground, and then alerted fellow officers that he found a weapon. Defendant was searched by the arresting officers who discovered crack cocaine on his person. No fingerprints were found on the gun. Defendant went to trial on a drug possession charge and an unlawful possession of a weapon charge. The jury found defendant guilty on both counts, and he pleaded guilty to a certain-persons offense the same day. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s convictions. Defendant appealed, arguing: (1) the trial court committed harmful error in permitting impeachment of defendant by his prior convictions; and (2) the trial court erred in admitting an affidavit by a non-testifying officer. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded after review of the record that the trial court erred in allowing the State to enter into evidence information set forth in the affidavit of a non-testifying officer concerning the no-permit results from a search of the State firearm registry, and that violation was not cured by testimony concerning the search of an Essex County firearm database. Further, the trial court’s incorrect N.J.R.E. 609 ruling constituted harmful error requiring reversal of the conviction. However, the Court declined to adopt the position that an evidentiary ruling that results in a defendant’s decision not to testify can never be harmless. Accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed. View "New Jersey v. Hedgespeth" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review in this appeal was who bore the primary responsibility for the payment of Dale Mecouch’s medical bills arising from an automobile accident that took place before December 5, 1980: the issuer of an automobile insurance policy or Medicare. In 2016, Mecouch was hospitalized for approximately two months at Cooper Hospital University Medical Center (Cooper) due to complications arising from a 1977 automobile accident that left him paralyzed from the waist down. At the time of his accident, Mecouch had a no-fault automobile insurance policy with Selective Insurance Company of America (Selective), which provided Mecouch with unlimited personal-injury-protection (PIP) benefits. Sometime after 1979 but before 2016, Mecouch was enrolled in Medicare. Selective continued to pay Mecouch’s medical expenses related to the 1977 accident until December 11, 2015, when it notified Mecouch by letter that, going forward, “Medicare is the appropriate primary payer for any treatment related to” the 1977 accident. After Mecouch’s 2016 hospital stay, Cooper forwarded to Selective a bill for over $850,000 for medical services rendered to Mecouch. Instead of paying that bill, Selective directed Cooper to seek reimbursement from Medicare. Cooper was a participating Medicare provider, and, at that time, Mecouch was a Medicare enrollee. Cooper then billed Medicare, which issued a payment of under $85,000. Selective eventually agreed to reimburse Cooper for Mecouch’s co-payments and deductibles. Cooper filed a complaint against Selective, seeking the total cost of Mecouch’s care. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cooper, awarding Cooper the cost of Mecouch’s care minus the amount covered by Medicare. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Medicare was the “primary payer” for Mecouch's medical bills at Cooper. The Supreme Court concluded that because Mecouch was a Medicare enrollee in 2016, Cooper was required to bill and accept payment from Medicare, which promptly covered Mecouch’s medical expenses in accordance with its fee schedule. Cooper could not seek payment from Selective other than for reimbursement of the Medicare co-payments and deductibles. View "Cooper Hospital University Medical Center v. Selective Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

Defendant Jose Carrion appealed his conviction by jury on weapons and drug offenses, as well as assault. Specifically he appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a statement that he made to law enforcement and for which he received Miranda warnings, but that he made after an earlier, unwarned statement. At trial, the prosecution sought to admit an affidavit of Brett Bloom of the State Firearms Investigative Unit, asserting that Bloom searched and found no record that Carrion had a firearm permit. The State asked the court to submit the affidavit as a self-authenticating document under N.J.R.E. 902(k) and under the absence-of-a-public-record exception to the hearsay rule, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(10). Defense counsel objected, arguing that there were hearsay and Confrontation Clause issues. The court found the document both reliable and admissible under N.J.R.E. 902(k) and exceptions to the hearsay rule. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. The New Jersey Supreme Court found the State’s reliance on an affidavit by a non-testifying witness to introduce over defendant’s objection the results of the database search violated defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And, under the totality of the circumstances, Carrion’s second statement should have been suppressed because the Miranda warnings issued to Carrion prior to his second statement to police were insufficient in these circumstances to ensure that his waiver of rights was voluntary and knowing. Because of its holding on the suppression issue, the Court could not conclude that the denial of defendant’s right to confrontation constituted harmless error. View "New Jersey v. Carrion" on Justia Law

Around midnight on May 7, 2011, a 7-Eleven was robbed. Approximately three-quarters of a mile from the 7-Eleven, Sergeant Mark Horan saw a car approaching in the oncoming traffic lane. Using the spotlight mounted to his police vehicle to illuminate the inside of the car, he observed that the occupants were a man and a woman and let them pass. Sergeant Horan testified that as he continued on, a second set of headlights approached. He illuminated the inside of the vehicle and observed three Black males; “[t]he description of the suspects was two Black males so at that point I decided to issue a motor vehicle stop on the second vehicle.” Horan later explained that he was also struck by the lack of reaction to the spotlight by the occupants of the car, and that he “took into consideration the short distance from the scene, as well as the short amount of time from the call” as he made the stop. Horan radioed headquarters with the license plate number and a description of the car, and two more officers arrived. Defendant Peter Nyema was sitting in the passenger seat and Jamar Myers was in the rear passenger-side seat. The dispatcher advised Horan that the vehicle had been reported stolen. All three occupants were placed under arrest. The question this case presented was whether a reasonable and articulable suspicion existed when a police officer conducted an investigatory stop of the vehicle in which defendants Peter Nyema and Jamar Myers were riding with co-defendant Tyrone Miller. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded the only information the officer possessed at the time of the stop was the race and sex of the suspects, with no further descriptors. "That information, which effectively placed every single Black male in the area under the veil of suspicion, was insufficient to justify the stop of the vehicle and therefore does not withstand constitutional scrutiny." View "New Jersey v. Nyema" on Justia Law

Consolidated appeals presented an issue of first impression for the New Jersey Supreme Court: whether police have a right to conduct a protective sweep of a home when an arrest is made outside the home and, if so, the requisite justification for a warrantless entry and protective sweep. In doing so, the Court balanced two important values: an individual’s fundamental privacy right in the home and the significant state interest in officer safety. The Court concluded that when an arrest occurs outside a home, the police may not enter the dwelling or conduct a protective sweep in the absence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a person or persons are present inside and pose an imminent threat to the officers’ safety. "This sensible balancing of the fundamental right to privacy in one’s home and the compelling interest in officer safety will depend on an objective assessment of the particular circumstances in each case, such as the manner of the arrest, the distance of the arrest from the home, the reasonableness of the officers’ suspicion that persons were in the dwelling and likely to launch an imminent attack, and any other relevant factors. A self-created exigency by the police cannot justify entry into the home or a protective sweep." In the case of Christopher Radel, a protective sweep was not warranted, but was constitutionally justified in Keith Terres' case. View "New Jersey v. Radel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Michele Meade served as Township Manager for Livingston Township for eleven years, from 2005 until her termination in 2016 by Resolution of the Township Council. The Council cited a number of performance areas in the Resolution. An area central to this appeal was Meade’s supervision of Police Chief Craig Handschuch. In 2013, pre-school teachers at the Livingston Community Center observed a man dressed in camouflage, carrying a rifle bag, in the parking lot. The classes went into lockdown and patrol cars were dispatched. Handschuch and Sergeant Kenneth Hanna alerted the responders that the man was an officer involved in a training exercise. Meade went to the Community Center during or in the aftermath of the incident. Days later, Hanna signed a complaint alleging that Meade had violated N.J.S.A. 2C:33-28 by using “unreasonably loud and offensive coarse or abusive language” in addressing him. Meade emailed a report to Handschuch concluding that he and the unit conducting the training were responsible for the incident. That same day, Hanna signed a second complaint against Meade, alleging obstruction. Meade was acquitted of all charges in 2014. Meanwhile, the record reflected ongoing concerns with Handschuch’s performance. An email from one council member following Handschuch’s failure to appear at meetings called by the Council stated, “Bring [Chief Handschuch] up on charges, bring in an investigator or do nothing. . . . [H]e is YOUR employee . . . .” Nevertheless, Meade testified that certain members of the Council did not authorize hiring an investigator. In addition, Meade filed a certification that “Councilman Al Anthony . . . suggested to me that maybe Chief Handschuch did not like reporting to a woman and should report to him as the Mayor instead,” a claim Anthony disputed in his deposition. Meade filed a complaint aalleging that the Council terminated her and replaced her with a male Manager “to appease the sexist male Police Chief.” The trial court granted Livingston’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Meade was terminated for poor work performance and that the record revealed no gender discrimination in her termination. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, finding sufficient evidence was present for a reasonable jury to find that what Livingston Township Councilmembers perceived to be Police Chief Handschuch’s discriminatory attitude toward Township Manager Meade influenced the Council’s decision to terminate her, in violation of the Law Against Discrimination. View "Meade v. Township of Livingston" on Justia Law

In April 2018, a seventeen-year-old civilian called police and reported that she had saw a man, later identified as defendant William Gerena, exposing himself to a group of children at a playground. Police officers responded to the scene and saw defendant sitting on a bench facing the playground, with his penis exposed and erect. Defendant was charged with second-degree sexual assault by contact and fourth-degree lewdness, which both required the State to prove that at least one of the victims was under the age of thirteen. At trial, one of the police officers and the civilian eyewitness recounted to the jury what they had saw at the park. The officer estimated that the children were around three to thirteen years old and that the smallest child appeared to be no higher than his waist. The civilian testified that the children were approximately six to fifteen years old and that the shortest child appeared no taller than her hip. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court admitted the witnesses’ lay opinions about the children’s ages and heights. The State relied on that testimony to prove that one or more of the children was under the age of thirteen, and the jury found defendant guilty of fourth-degree lewdness. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the two witnesses had an adequate opportunity to view the physical characteristics and activities of the group of children to enable them to provide lay opinions about the perceived ranges of the children’s heights and ages. The issue presented on appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in admitting the eyewitnesses' lay opinions. Finding no such abuse, the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment. View "New Jersey v. Gerena" on Justia Law

Defendant Cynthia Rivera admitted to planning and participating in the armed robbery of Justin Garcia, resulting in serious injuries to Garcia and the murder of his friend, Andrew Torres. At the time of the offenses, defendant was eighteen years old and in a relationship with Martin Martinez. Defendant pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter and assault and to conspiracy to commit robbery. At the time of sentencing, defendant was then nineteen years old with no prior criminal history, no juvenile record, and no arrests. Defendant expressed deep regret for her actions and told the court she had severed her relationship with Martinez, who defendant stated was physically, mentally, and emotionally abusive to her. The sentencing court applied two aggravating factors -- the risk defendant would commit another offense; and the need for deterrence-- and two mitigating factors -- the absence of a prior record, and willingness to cooperate with law enforcement. The court did not address mitigating factor nine -- unlikeliness to reoffend -- which the State had conceded. The court weighed aggravating factor three, the risk of reoffense, more heavily than the other factors, relying in large part on defendant’s youth. Thus, the court concluded that the aggravating factors substantially outweighed the mitigating factors and sentenced defendant in accordance with that finding. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted review here to consider whether a defendant’s youth could serve as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The Supreme Court reversed, vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing. "Consistent with both this Court’s precedent and the intent of the Legislature in recently adopting youth as a mitigating statutory factor, we hold that a defendant’s youth may be considered only as a mitigating factor in sentencing." Additionally, the Court held that on resentencing, the sentencing court should consider mitigating factor fourteen -- that “the defendant was under [twenty six] years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.” View "New Jersey v. Rivera" on Justia Law

In June 2018, plaintiff “Clara” and defendant “Martin” had sex after a night of drinking. Plaintiff alleged she was too intoxicated to give consent, but defendant claimed the entire encounter was consensual. Plaintiff filed for a temporary restraining order pursuant to the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act of 2015 (SASPA), which required consideration of at least two factors, commonly referred to as the two "prongs:": “(1) the occurrence of one or more acts of nonconsensual sexual contact . . . against the alleged victim; and (2) the possibility of future risk to the safety or well-being of the alleged victim.” After a hearing, the trial court found both parties’ accounts to be “equally plausible.” Applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, the court concluded that Clara’s extreme voluntary intoxication rendered her “temporarily incapable of understanding the nature of her conduct” and that she had therefore been subjected to nonconsensual sexual contact within the meaning of SASPA’s first prong. With regard to the second prong, the court noted the lack of evidence that Martin sought to contact Clara after their encounter. Nonetheless, recognizing that SASPA was intended to provide protection to victims of nonconsensual sexual contact, as well as the possibility that Martin “may now harbor a grudge against [Clara] which would probably not have occurred but for these proceedings,” the court concluded that “it is more likely than not that a final restraining order is appropriate.” The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, holding that the proper standard to assess whether plaintiff was incapable of consent due to intoxication was the prostration of faculties standard. The New Jersey Supreme Court found both lower courts were wrong: the appropriate standard to determine whether sexual activity was consensual under SASPA was the standard articulated in New Jersey in Interest of M.T.S., 129 N.J. 422 (1992), which was applied from the perspective of the alleged victim. The trial court's judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for the trial court for assessment under the standard articulated in M.T.S. View "C.R. v. M.T." on Justia Law