Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Demetrius Cope lived in a second-floor apartment with a back porch adjacent to its living room. Three officers positioned themselves behind the building, while Sergeant Brintzinghoffer and two other officers knocked on the front door. After knocking, the sergeant heard a commotion inside the apartment. He announced that he had a warrant, and seconds later, an officer guarding the rear called out that defendant had run into the apartment from the back porch. April Grant, defendant's adult daughter, opened the door. Sergeant Brintzinghoffer and another officer climbed the stairs, walked into the living room, and arrested defendant. Sergeant Brintzinghoffer conducted a protective sweep of the bedroom, bathroom, and back porch to ensure that no one could launch a surprise attack. When he stepped onto the porch, he saw a bag on the floor next to a storage bin in which he feared someone might be hiding. He picked up the bag and knew by its weight and feel that a rifle was inside. He opened the bag and found an assault-type rifle, a banana clip, and numerous rounds of ammunition. The bag and its contents were seized as evidence. The trial court found the sergeant credible and denied defendant's motion to suppress the contents of the bag on the basis that the officer conducted a permissive protective sweep, during which he discovered the rifle. The Appellate Division reversed defendant's conviction, concluding that the rifle should have been suppressed because the police did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of danger that justified the protective sweep. The panel also found that the trial court improperly denied defendant the right to advance a third-party-guilt defense. The Supreme Court agreed that defendant's conviction should have been reversed because defendant was denied the right to present a full third-party-guilt defense. The witness' account of having placed the rifle in defendant s apartment was not factually impossible, however implausible it may have seemed to the trial court. The final arbiter of the witness' credibility should have been the jury, not the court. The Supreme Court disagreed, however, with the Appellate Division's conclusion that the trial court erred in not suppressing the rifle. After arresting defendant in his living room, the police conducted a protective sweep of an adjoining porch to ensure that no individuals posing a safety risk were on the premises. The protective sweep did not violate constitutional standards. View "New Jersey v. Cope" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on challenges to several documents and disbursements that were purportedly executed by Adrian Folcher in the closing days of his life. Petitioner Bernice Tambascia-Folcher, Folcher's wife and a beneficiary, used that relationship to commit a pattern of fraud, forgery, and undue influence near the end of his life. After the conclusion of a lengthy estate contest, the trial court invoked that relationship, coupled with its finding of undue influence, to shift the Estate's counsel fees to Bernice. The issue for the Supreme Court's review was whether it should expand the narrow exception to the American Rule created in "In re Niles Trust," (176 N.J. 282 (2003)). After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court declined to expand the Niles exception to a person who did not owe a fiduciary responsibility to the Estate and its beneficiaries, no matter how repugnant the conduct. "Because that confidential relationship endowed Bernice with an obligation to only her husband, and not the Estate, a fee award was not the proper vehicle to do equity. The trial court had other, unused means at its disposal for that." The Court remanded this case back to the trial court to vacate the fee award and to allow the court to consider other equitable relief that was foregone because fee-shifting mistakenly became an integral part of the court's equitable remedy. View "In the Matter of the Estate of Adrian J. Folcher" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Peter Innes and his wife, Maria Jose Carrascosa, were involved in a contentious divorce and custody battle over their daughter Victoria. Innes was a citizen of the United States; Carrascosa was a Spanish national and a permanent resident of New Jersey. Victoria was a dual citizen of the United States and Spain. During the course of their domestic relations litigation, the parties entered into an agreement whereby Carrascosa's attorneys would hold Victoria's United States and Spanish passports in trust to restrict travel outside of the United States with Victoria without written permission of the other party (the Agreement). Carrascosa discharged her first attorney and retained defendants Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, Esq., and Lesnevich & Marzano Lesnevich, Attorneys at Law. Defendant Marzano-Lesnevich received Carrascosa's file, including the Agreement and Victoria's United States passport. In December 2004, Carrascosa obtained Victoria's United States passport from defendants, and used the passport to remove Victoria from the United States to Spain. Innes filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for Victoria's return to the United States and traveled to Spain for a hearing on the petition. The Spanish court denied the petition and ordered Victoria to remain in Spain until age eighteen. Meanwhile, the parties' domestic relations litigation continued in New Jersey. The Family Part judge entered a judgment of divorce and granted Innes sole legal and residential custody of Victoria. The judgment gave Carrascosa ten days to bring Victoria back to the United States, but Carrascosa failed to comply with the order. Innes filed a complaint in the Law Division against defendants alleging, in part, that they improperly released Victoria's passport and intentionally interfered with the Agreement. Innes requested relief, including damages and attorneys' fees. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted defendants petition for certification, limited to the issue of whether the attorney-defendants could be liable for attorneys' fees as consequential damages to a non-client, and found that yes, defendant attorneys could be held liable for counsel fees if, as trustees and escrow agents for both Innes and Carrascosa, they intentionally breached their fiduciary obligation to Innes by releasing Victoria's United States passport to Carrascosa without Innes' permission. View "Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich" on Justia Law

A jury convicted defendant Patrick McFarlane of first-degree murder, felony-murder, and armed robbery, and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. During sentencing, the State requested an aggregate term of eighty years, subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act (NERA). Defendant requested a thirty-year term with thirty years parole ineligibility on the murder count, and a concurrent ten-year term on the robbery count, subject to NERA. After mentioning his assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors and merging the felony murder and unlawful gun possession charges, the judge imposed a sixty-year sentence on the first-degree murder count and a concurrent twenty-year term on the first-degree armed robbery count, both subject to NERA. Defendant appealed and moved to supplement the record with a transcript of a status conference in "New Jersey v. Brown," a different murder case involving the same judge that took place thirteen months after defendant's sentencing, as well as three judgments of conviction (JOC) by the same judge involving other defendants convicted of murder following jury trials. The transcript of the Brown status conference showed that, after the defendant rejected the State's plea offer of forty-five years for first-degree murder, the trial judge stated: "I always give defendants convicted by a jury [of first-degree murder] a minimum of 60 years NERA, and you can check my record." The three JOCs showed that the same judge sentenced three other defendants convicted by juries of first-degree murder to sixty-year terms of imprisonment, subject to NERA. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant McFarlane's s conviction and sentence, concluding that the trial judge adequately explained his reasons for finding the aggravating and mitigating factors. The Supreme Court vacated McFarlane's sentence and remanded for resentencing: "While we acknowledge the judge's subsequent explanation for his remarks, preservation of the public's confidence and trust in our system of criminal sentencing requires that the matter be remanded for resentencing by another judge of the same vicinage." View "New Jersey v. McFarlane" on Justia Law

In 2006, Jessica Shabazz was shot and killed, and James Sinclair was wounded at a motel. Defendant David Bass was arrested shortly thereafter. He admitted to police that, prior to the shooting, he had smoked crack cocaine with Shabazz and Sinclair in his motel room, that he and Shabazz had argued over money, and that he shot Shabazz and Sinclair with his handgun in self-defense. A jury convicted defendant of the knowing or purposeful murder of Shabazz, the attempted murder of Sinclair, and two weapons offenses. He was sentenced to a sixty-year aggregate term of incarceration. On appeal, defendant challenged three determinations by the trial court: (1) the trial court's limitation on the cross-examination of the State's lead witness, Sinclair; (2) the trial court's admission of the expert testimony of a medical examiner, who testified as a surrogate for another medical examiner who had conducted the autopsy of Shabazz, because that medical examiner died prior to defendant's trial; and (3) the trial should have charged the jury regarding the permissible use of force against an intruder. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court held that the trial court's limitations on defendant s cross-examination of Sinclair constituted reversible error. The Court also reversed the Appellate Division's judgment affirming the trial court's admission of the expert testimony of a substitute medical examiner regarding the autopsy of Shabazz. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "New Jersey v. Bass" on Justia Law

Sundiata Acoli had been convicted for murder. He was denied parole twice. Acoli filed an internal administrative appeal, which entitled him to a review by the full Parole Board of the record that had been developed before the Board panel, as well as any additional material submitted by Acoli. Because he had not been recommended for parole, the full Board did not conduct an in-person assessment of Acoli consistent with its regulations governing the parole process. The Parole Board affirmed the denial of parole and the extended future parole eligibility date established for Acoli. In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division reversed the Parole Board. The Supreme Court granted the Parole Board's petition for certification, which argued only that it was error, under the statutory process governing parole, for the Appellate Division to have proceeded directly to ordering Acoli's parole. Construction of the statutes governing the parole process lead the Supreme Court to conclude that the Appellate Division acted prematurely in ordering Acoli's parole release. The Appellate Division was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Acoli v. New Jersey Parole Board" on Justia Law

A jury found defendant Robert Goodwin guilty of second-degree insurance fraud. In doing so, the jury concluded that defendant knowingly made or caused to be made false statements of material fact concerning an insurance claim for damage to his girlfriend's sport utility vehicle (SUV). The heart of the State's case was that defendant falsely reported the theft of the vehicle, which was found severely damaged as the result of arson. The insurance company discovered the lie during an investigation when defendant recanted his earlier story that the SUV had been stolen. As a result, the carrier did not reimburse the loss. The Appellate Division overturned defendant's conviction because the jury was not told that a finding of insurance fraud could be returned only if the carrier actually relied on defendant's false statements. In the Appellate Division's view, the trial court erred by charging a relaxed standard: that guilt could be found if the false statements had the capacity to influence the insurance company s decision to pay the claim. The Supreme Court reversed: a person violates the insurance fraud statute even if he does not succeed in duping an insurance carrier into paying a fraudulent claim. Because the Court concluded that the trial court did not err in its charge to the jury, defendant's conviction was reinstated. View "New Jersey v. Goodwin" on Justia Law

Defendant Howard Jones was charged with third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, arising from events that took place one morning in the spring of 2009 involving C.W., a fourteen-year-old girl. According to C.W.'s testimony, she was on her way to school when she saw a man standing there with his penis out. C.W. ran toward her school, and quickly encountered Leonard Wimbush. According to Wimbush, he saw a man emerge from the bushes and followed after him, but was unable to continue his pursuit after the man jumped a fence. Wimbush returned to the front of the building and waited for the police. When officers arrived, Wimbush joined police to search for the suspect. During the search, the responding officer came upon an individual wearing a gray sweatshirt, and asked the man (later identified as defendant) if he had seen anyone suspicious in the area. The man responded, "The gentleman who was exposing himself is on the track bed." Because the officer had not mentioned that he was looking for an individual who had exposed himself, he became interested. Defendant started to walk toward the back of the house to obtain his identification, and then ran away. Wimbush tackled the man, and the officer placed defendant under arrest. Following the close of the State's case, defendant moved to strike C.W.'s identification, arguing that it was tainted. Defense counsel noted that C.W. did not see defendant's face, that she recognized defendant only once the jacket was placed on him, that the officers never showed her any other suspects, and that Wimbush and the officer were standing next to defendant when he was identified. The trial court denied the motion, noting that, although one-on-one showup identifications are inherently suggestive, C.W.'s testimony was reliable because it was corroborated by Wimbush, who identified defendant and who provided a description that was essentially the same as the one provided by C.W. Defendant appealed, contending that [b]y placing the incriminating jacket on defendant after C.W. failed to identify defendant without the jacket, the police violated defendant's [due process] right to be free from suggestive police identification procedures that create a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. Defendant also challenged his sentence and the trail court's failure to charge lewdness as a lesser-included offense. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the State's argument that what occurred at this showup was an identification of an inanimate object. Here, C.W. was not simply identifying a jacket being shown to her by the police because it had been found near where defendant was located. "Placing a jacket on a person after his arrest and using that item of clothing during the eyewitness identification procedure when a witness is having difficulty identifying the suspect raises due process concerns." The case was remanded for a new trial. View "New Jersey v. Jones" on Justia Law

The insured, who had been sued for damages by plaintiffs, entered into a settlement whereby it agreed to assign its rights and interests under the insurance policy to plaintiffs. However, when plaintiffs sought to recover under the policy, the insurer denied coverage because the insured breached the policy's notice conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurance company, finding that notice was not given as soon as practicable, and that the insurance company need not show appreciable prejudice as a result of the delay in notice in order to refuse coverage. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed substantially for the reasons given by the trial court. After its review, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that because this Directors and Officers claims made policy was not a contract of adhesion but was agreed to by sophisticated parties, the insurance company was not required to show that it suffered prejudice before disclaiming coverage on the basis of the insured's failure to give timely notice of the claim. View "Templo Fuente De Vida Corp., et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The issue before the New Jersey Supreme Court was a narrow one of appellate jurisdiction of an agency decision and the appropriate response by an appellate tribunal when it encounters on its calendar an interlocutory order from which leave to appeal was neither sought nor granted. A school principal was returned to teaching due to a reduction-in-force (RIF), which included elimination of all vice-principal positions throughout the school district. The principal filed a petition with the Commissioner of Education to establish her tenure and seniority rights as a vice-principal. Her employer, the Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, challenged the validity of her principal certification, which challenge, if successful, affected her tenure and seniority rights. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted the Elizabeth Board's position, but the Commissioner rejected the Initial Decision and remanded the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) for calculation of the principal's tenure and seniority rights. The ALJ complied, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision, and the Elizabeth Board appealed. The Appellate Division held that the Commissioner's first decision was a final order from which the Elizabeth Board could have filed an appeal as of right. Having failed to do so, the panel concluded that the Elizabeth Board waived its right to appeal the Commissioner's first decision. The appellate panel raised the issue of the timeliness of the appeal sua sponte and determined that the Commissioner's first decision rejecting the ALJ s Initial Decision was a final order from which the employer should have taken an appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the Commissioner's order became a final decision from which an appeal could be filed as of right only when the Commissioner adopted the decision of the ALJ following the remand proceedings. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division. View "Silviera-Francisco v. Bd. of Education of the City of Elizabeth" on Justia Law