Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The primary issue in this appeal involved the warrantless search of an apartment, where the police found drugs and evidence allegedly linking defendant to the apartment. Evidence seized from the apartment was the basis for multiple drug charges filed against defendant. At a suppression motion, the State argued that exigent circumstances and the need for a protective sweep justified the entry into the apartment and the seizure of evidence. The trial court upheld the search, apparently on standing grounds, finding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment. A panel of the Appellate Division reversed and held that because defendant had automatic standing to challenge the search based on the possessory drug charges, defendant had no burden to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment. The panel also rejected the State's assertion, raised for the first time on appeal, that the apartment was abandoned. The panel remanded to the trial court to determine whether the search was justified based on the protective-sweep or exigent-circumstances doctrine. The panel also reversed defendant s conviction based on the trial court s failure to give a mere presence charge. The Supreme Court affirmed the panel s determination that defendant had automatic standing to challenge the search of the apartment because he was charged with possessory drug offenses and because the State failed to show that the apartment was abandoned or that defendant was a trespasser. Additionally, although the Court found the better course would have been to give the jury an instruction on mere presence, the failure to do so was harmless error. The Court therefore vacated the panel's judgment requiring a new trial on that issue. View "New Jersey v. Randolph" on Justia Law

At a status conference, the State took issue with the witness list defendant produced because it listed the names of three men but did not provide identifiers, addresses, or synopses of their anticipated testimony which the State alleged was in violation of Rule3:13-3(b)(2)(C). In response, defendant agreed to produce identifiers and addresses but argued against providing synopses. Defendant asserted that the Rule required that synopses be produced only if they have already been reduced to writing. Defense counsel affirmed that no witness statement summaries had been prepared. The trial court ordered the defense to produce witness synopses and to create them if they had not been previously drafted. The court specifically ordered defense counsel to provide the State with the reason why the witnesses are on the list. The Appellate Division summarily reversed the trial court s order, reasoning that a criminal defendant s disclosures are carefully limited by the strictures of Rule3:13-3(b)(2). The Supreme Court found a plain reading of Rule3:13-3(b)(2)(C) required production of witness statements only if those statements have already been reduced to writing. Nothing in the rules precludes a trial court from ordering a defendant to designate witnesses as either character or fact witnesses, however. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of the discovery order as it related to the witness statements and modify the panel's determination that the trial court improperly ordered defendant to designate fact and character witnesses. View "New Jersey v. Tier" on Justia Law

The issue presented for the Supreme Court’s review was whether the protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement applied to a police officer’s search of a vehicle’s passenger compartment in the wake of a traffic stop. The officer conducted a brief conversation with defendant, who was the driver, and his three passengers; the vehicle’s occupants responded to the officer’s questions with confusing and evasive answers. The officer learned defendant and one passenger had outstanding warrants and were known to carry weapons. He requested backup and was promptly joined by four other officers. The five officers removed the four occupants from the vehicle and frisked them for weapons. They arrested and handcuffed defendant and one passenger and monitored the other passengers outside of the vehicle. None of the four resisted the officers or sought access to the vehicle. The police officer who had conducted the traffic stop then searched the interior of the vehicle. The officer lifted one passenger’s purse to search the seat, recognized that a weapon was contained in the purse, and retrieved a handgun. Charged with the unlawful possession of a handgun, defendant moved to suppress the weapon on the ground that it was the product of an unconstitutional search. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. A divided Appellate Division panel reversed the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that although the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that there was a weapon in the vehicle, the five officers’ swift and coordinated action eliminated the risk that any of the four occupants would gain immediate access to the weapon. Accordingly, the protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement did not govern this case. The Court concurred with the Appellate Division majority’s determination that the community-caretaking exception to the warrant requirement was irrelevant. However, because the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule could be pertinent to this case, the Court remanded for further proceedings. View "New Jersey v. Robinson" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the issue presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether a defendant seeking a waiver of the mandatory minimum sentence under the Graves Act was entitled to discovery of the prosecutor's files from cases in which other defendants were granted waivers of the mandatory minimum penalty. The Supreme Court determined defendants were not entitled to discovery of the prosecution's files for cases in which Graves Act waivers had been granted to other defendants. View "New Jersey v. Benjamin" on Justia Law

In consolidated sentencing appeals, the issue before the New Jersey Supreme Court was whether an amendment to the Graves Act, N.J.S.A.2C:43-6.2 (section 6.2), which authorized a prosecutor to move before the assignment judge for a waiver of the Graves Act's mandatory minimum terms of incarceration for certain first-time offenders, was properly applied in defendants sentencing proceedings. The Court also considered whether sentencing judges have the discretion to elect one of the two alternative sentences set forth in section 6.2: to place the defendant on probation . . . or reduce to one year the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment during which the defendant will be ineligible for parole. After review, the Supreme Court concluded section 6.2 was misapplied in defendants' sentencing proceedings and therefore defendants should have been resentenced. The assignment judge, not the sentencing judge, has the authority to decide whether a defendant will be sentenced to a term of probation or a term of incarceration with a one-year period of parole ineligibility. If the defendant has been convicted of a first-degree or second-degree Graves Act offense, the assignment judge (or designee) must consider the presumption of incarceration prescribed by N.J.S.A.2C:44-1(d) when he or she chooses between the probationary and one-year mandatory minimum sentences envisioned by section 6.2. View "New Jersey v. Nance" on Justia Law

In 1983, the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed a final consent judgment for a settlement agreement between the New Jersey State Bar Association and the New Jersey Association of Realtor Boards. The terms of the settlement provided that real estate brokers and salespersons may prepare contracts to sell or lease real property, so long as a standard form is used that includes a three-day period for attorney review. Plaintiffs Michael Conley, Jr., and Katie M. Maurer (Buyers) made an offer to purchase a condominium from defendant Mona Guerrero (Seller), and, a few days later, Seller signed and executed the contract. Before the three-day attorney-review period expired, Seller s attorney sent Buyers attorney and their realtor notice of disapproval by e-mail and fax, rather than by the methods approved under the 1983 holding and prescribed in the parties' contract (certified mail, telegram, or personal service). Buyers sued for specific performance, claiming the contract was enforceable because Seller s notification of disapproval was sent improperly. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the attorney-review provision of a standard form real estate contract had to be strictly enforced, thereby nullifying Seller's notice of disapproval and requiring enforcement of the real estate contract. The Court concluded that, because Buyers received actual notice of disapproval within the three-day attorney-review period by a method of communication commonly used in the industry, the notice of disapproval was valid. The Court also exercised its constitutional authority over the practice of law and found that an attorney's notice of disapproval of a real estate contract could be transmitted by fax, e-mail, personal delivery, or overnight mail with proof of delivery. Notice by overnight mail will be effective upon mailing. The attorney-review period within which this notice must be sent remained three business days. View "Conley v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether a corporation's release of a debt constituted a constructively fraudulent transfer under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). The debt that was released had previously been owed to the corporation by a landscaping business that was a creditor of two other corporations owned by the same shareholder. The other corporations debts to the landscaping business were extinguished in exchange for the release. The trial court concluded that the transfer was constructively fraudulent under N.J.S.A.25:2-27(a) because the corporation relinquished its sole asset without receiving reasonably equivalent value in return. An Appellate Division panel reversed that determination. The panel held that the transfer benefited the debtor corporation's sole shareholder because it extinguished the debts of two other corporations that she owned. The Appellate Division determined that the transfer was therefore made for reasonably equivalent value and that it was not constructively fraudulent under N.J.S.A.25:2-27(a). The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Appellate Division panel improperly ignored the distinction between the corporation that was the debtor for purposes of N.J.S.A.25:2-27(a) and its shareholder, as well as the distinction between the debtor corporation and the other corporate entities that the shareholder owned. The Court concluded the evidence fully supported the trial court's determination the corporation did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the disputed transfer. Accordingly, the Appellate Division's judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the panel for its consideration of issues that it did not reach. View "Motorworld, Inc. v. Benkendorf" on Justia Law

A grand jury indicted defendant Carl Garrison on several counts of child sexual abuse. The charges stemmed from allegations of abuse against his girlfriend s daughter, Joan. Joan testified that defendant abused her throughout the summer of 2010, when she was eleven years old, both in Alabama and New Jersey. Prior to trial, defendant moved to exclude evidence of events that took place in Alabama as inadmissible other-crimes evidence under N.J.R.E.404(b). The State also presented an expert witness’ testimony who examined Joan and found no evidence of physical abuse. The trial court found that the evidence of what occurred in Alabama was admissible not as other-crimes evidence, but as intrinsic evidence of the charged crimes. The court provided limiting instructions to the jury at the time the evidence was introduced and in the final charge to the jury. The jury subsequently convicted defendant of three counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, two counts of second-degree sexual assault, and one count of third-degree endangering the welfare of a child. Defendant received an aggregate sentence of fifty-two years in prison, with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility. Defendant appealed, arguing that evidence of events that allegedly took place in Alabama was improperly admitted. Although not raised below, defendant also contended that the admission of a portion of the expert’s statistics-based testimony was error. The Appellate Division reversed defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new trial, rejecting the State’s contention that the Alabama evidence was intrinsic to the crimes charged and determined that this evidence should have been evaluated under N.J.R.E.404(b). The Appellate Division then concluded that the evidence failed to satisfy Rule404(b) and that its admission was not harmless error. In a footnote, the panel agreed that the expert’s testimony amounted to an improper opinion of Joan s credibility and constituted plain error. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the Alabama evidence was admissible and given an appropriate limiting instruction. View "New Jersey v. Garrison" on Justia Law

Before trial, defendant moved to exclude the results of a breath test in conjunction with a traffic stop, after which he was found to have been driving while intoxicated (DWI). His license was suspended. Defendant claimed that he was entitled to additional discovery, namely, more detailed repair records of the Alcotest device and data downloads of certain diagnostic tests. The municipal court judge found probable cause for the arrest and rejected defendant’s discovery arguments. The court found defendant guilty of DWI. The State dismissed the other charges. The court sentenced defendant to a total of $714 in fines and penalties, ordered him to serve twelve hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center, and revoked his driving privileges for seven months, the minimum period for a first offender. Defendant requested, and without objection from the State, the municipal court judge stayed the license suspension for twenty days to allow defendant time to file an appeal. At a trial de novo before the Law Division, defendant again argued that the State failed to provide adequate discovery. The trial court rejected the claim, found defendant guilty, and imposed the same sentence. Defense counsel immediately moved to continue the stay of defendant’s license suspension, which the State opposed. The trial judge granted the request on the condition that defendant file an appeal within ten days. On appeal, defendant renewed his discovery argument. In a published opinion, the Appellate Division reviewed and rejected defendant s position. The Appellate Division also addressed an issue that the parties had not raised: both the municipal court and the Law Division stayed defendant’s license suspension pending appeal without providing any statement of reasons. Defendant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court that did not challenge the conviction nor the sentence, only questioning the appropriate standards for a stay of judgment in a DWI case. Because defendant had completed his suspension, the standards outlined by the Supreme Court’s opinion did not apply. However, the standards announced by this opinion governed future requests for stay in a license suspension by municipal courts and the Law Division. View "New Jersey v. Robertson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Emelia Jackson and Tahisha Roach purchased used cars from BM Motoring, LLC, and Federal Auto Brokers, Inc., doing business as BM Motor Cars (collectively, BM). As part of the transaction, each plaintiff signed an identical DRA, which required resolution of disputes through an arbitration in accordance with the rules of the AAA before a retired judge or an attorney. Two months later, Jackson filed a demand for arbitration against BM with the AAA, asserting a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) for treble damages and other relief based on overcharges and misrepresentations by BM. Despite repeated requests by the AAA, BM did not advance the filing fees that the DRA obligated it to pay, or otherwise respond to the claim. The AAA dismissed Jackson’s arbitration claim for non-payment of fees. Six months after her vehicle purchase, Roach filed a complaint in the Superior Court against BM, and similarly, received no response from BM in response to the arbitration demand. Plaintiffs then filed this action against defendants, who moved to dismiss the complaint in favor of arbitration. Defendants contended that they did not contemplate using the AAA as the forum for arbitration, and consistently had not arbitrated customer disputes before the AAA, because of the excessive filing and administrative fees that the AAA charged. In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs asserted that defendants materially breached the DRA by failing to advance filing and arbitration fees, and waived their right to arbitration. Defendants contended that they neither breached the DRA nor waived arbitration because the AAA was not the appropriate arbitral forum. The trial court found that the parties intended to resolve disputes by arbitration. The court ordered the parties to attempt to reinstate plaintiffs’ claims with the AAA; if the AAA refused to administer the claim, plaintiffs could reinstate their complaint. The AAA reinstated the arbitration, and the court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding that there was a sufficient factual dispute as to the proper forum for arbitration that defendants conduct did not constitute a material breach of the DRA, nor did they voluntarily and intentionally waive their right to enforce the DRA. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment, finding defendants’ non-payment of filing and arbitration fees amounted to a material breach of the DRA. Defendants were therefore precluded from enforcing the arbitration provision, and the case proceeded in the courts. View "Roach v. BM Motoring, LLC" on Justia Law