Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this appeal and in "New Jersey v. McDonald," (2012), separately conducted sentencing proceedings resulted in sentences that imposed (in the aggregate) multiple extended-term sentences. In previous cases, the Supreme Court addressed N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(a)(1)'s prohibition against sentencing a defendant to multiple extended terms in a single sentencing proceeding. In this appeal, the Court addressed for the first time the importance of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(b)(1)'s incorporation of subsection a's prohibitions to certain offenses and sentencing proceedings, when sentencing was conducted in separate proceedings. Defendant Kevin Hudson was sentenced to a second extended-term sentence for an offense committed prior to the imposition of the extended-term sentence he was serving. The Appellate Division affirmed, recognizing that multiple extended terms may not be imposed in a single sentencing proceeding, but concluded that because Defendant sought severance and subjected himself to two separate sentencing proceedings, his sentence was not illegal. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that in this case, because the indictment was severed resulting in two trials and two sentencing proceedings, and the first sentencing court imposed an extended-term prison sentence, it was error for the second court also to impose an extended-term sentence. The timing and sequence of the offenses and sentencings brought Defendant squarely under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5(b)(1)'s proscription against multiple extended-term sentences. View "New Jersey v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether it was proper for a police officer to testify at trial about how and why he assembled a photo array. In 2005, Angel Chalco left his home in Newark and headed toward the subway station to catch a train to work. As he walked down the stairs, the men grabbed Chalco, pulled him backward, and demanded money. The men took Chalco’s wallet and his cell phone. They then hit him on the head and kicked his stomach, causing him to lose consciousness. After he returned home, he called the police. Soon after, he met with a New Jersey Transit Police Detective and described one of his assailants. That description was broadcast to patrol units. At police headquarters, Chalco viewed about thirty photographs but did not identify anyone as his assailant. A police sketch artist worked with Chalco and prepared a sketch of the assailant based on Chalco’s description. The composite drawing was then disseminated. Days later, the detective came across an arrest photo of Defendant Danny Lazo taken after he had jumped a turnstile. The detective thought Defendant’s photo closely resembled the composite sketch and included a picture of Defendant in an array he compiled. To comply with guidelines from the Attorney General, the detective used a two-year-old photo of Defendant instead of the more recent arrest photo. The detective showed Chalco the photo array, and Chalco identified the picture of Defendant as his assailant. Defendant was arrested the following day. Defendant vigorously objected to both the introduction of the arrest photo and the testimony. The Supreme Court granted defendant’s petition for certification. Upon review, the Court found that the officer’s testimony about the photo array had no independent relevance, merely served to bolster the victim’s account, and should not have been admitted at trial in light of the principles outlined in “New Jersey v. Branch” (182 N.J. 338 (2005)). View "New Jersey v. Lazo" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, Officer Willie Rowe, was patrolling a particular area as part of the police department’s “Safe Block” initiative. Plaintiff had visited Defendants Mazel Thirty, LLC’s building once before on a similar patrol. As he descended the stairs that led from the sidewalk down to the basement door, grasping the handrail and shining his flashlight, the cement that was covering the steps broke, causing him injuries. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Defendants carelessly and negligently supervised, maintained and controlled their premises and failed to adequately warn him of the hazardous conditions. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff’s presence was unforeseen and that he was aware of the condition of the steps. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the officer stood in the shoes of a licensee to whom the landowner owed a duty to warn of any dangerous conditions of which the owner knew or had reason to know and of which the officer was reasonably unaware. Because the record presented a genuine issue of material fact regarding the officer’s awareness of the dangerous condition, “the grant of summary judgment was a usurpation of the jury’s function.” View "Rowe v. Mazel Thirty, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the "spouse privilege" could be pierced using the three-part test set forth in "In re Kozlov" (79 N.J. 232 (1979) to prevent that spouse from testifying in a criminal proceeding against her husband. In 2006, "Joanne" worked in Defendant Dr. James Mauti's medical office. Her sister Jeannette also worked in Defendant's office as the office manager. Jeannette was his live-in girlfriend. Joanne complained of back pain one day, and Defendant offered to treat her. He gave her a a pain pill and a small liquid described as a muscle relaxant. Joanne recalled that Defendant asked her to change into a pair of his boxer shorts "in case he needed to crack her back." After Defendant gave her a second cup of liquid, she became incapacitated. However, she remembered Mauti heating towels to apply to her back, loosening and pulling down her boxer shorts, and sexually assaulting her. She also remembered a sound that reminded her of a digital camera or cellular phone taking a picture. Joanne claimed Defendant sexually assaulted her. The State subpoenaed Jeannette to appear before a grand jury in late 2006. In the summer of 2007, Jeannette and Defendant announced their wedding engagement. Defendant was charged in August. Jeannette informed the State that she would invoke the spousal privilege with regard to her testimony. The State moved to compel Jeannette to testify. The trial court held that the privilege could be pierced under "Kozlov" because the evidence sought from Jeannette was legitimately needed and could not be secured from a less-intrusive source. The Appellate Division reversed, and the Supreme Court affirmed, finding Jeannette was entitled to exercise the spousal privilege of refusing to testify in his criminal trial because there was no conflict between Jeannette's exercise of the privilege and a constitutional right, and she did not waive her right to exercise the privilege. View "New Jersey v. Mauti" on Justia Law

A grand jury returned a fifty-count indictment against Defendant Roy Friedman for offenses against his wife and children. Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to three counts of second-degree aggravated assault upon his wife that occurred during three separate periods of time in 2006. The State agreed to recommend sentences of six years, seven years, and seven years, respectively, for the three offenses, each subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA) and to run consecutively to the others. The remaining forty-seven counts would be dismissed. Defendant agreed to waive any argument against imposing consecutive sentences. At the plea hearing, the trial court carefully questioned defendant about his understanding of and agreement with the terms of the plea. Defendant admitted that during the periods of time in question, he burned his wife's arm and thigh with hot oven racks from a toaster oven; as a result, she was hospitalized for life-threatening infections and skin grafts. From his appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether Defendant must serve the periods of post-release parole supervision that are part of a NERA sentence consecutively or concurrently; and whether "State v. Hess" (207 N.J. 123 (2011)), required invalidation of a portion of the plea bargain under which Defendant agreed that his attorney would not argue for concurrent sentences, as opposed to the consecutive sentences to which he had agreed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that when a defendant has been sentenced to consecutive custodial terms under NERA, the periods of parole supervision that follow must be served consecutively. The Court did not reach whether "Hess" applied in this case because the trial court recognized its inherent sentencing authority, and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was appropriate to impose consecutive sentences for three separate assaults Defendant admitted committing upon his wife. View "New Jersey v. Friedman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court consolidated this case with "Walker v. Guiffre" because it implicated the state's fee-shifting statutes. The Appellate Division found that the trial court's analysis of the reasonableness of Plaintiff's attorneys' hourly rate in "Walker" did not satisfy the analysis found in "Rendine v. Pantzer" (141 N.J. 292 (1995)). The Supreme Court considered whether the "Rendine" framework had been altered by the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Perdue v. Kenny A." (130 S.Ct. 1662 (2010)). The Court concluded that the mechanism for awarding attorneys' fees (including contingency enhancements) as adopted in "Rendine" remain in full force and effect as the governing principles for awards made pursuant to New Jersey fee-shifting statutes. View "Humphries v. Powder Mill Shopping Plaza" on Justia Law

Plaintiff May Walker alleged that Defendant Carmelo Guiffre violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). After finding that Defendant violated the CFA and TCCWNA, the trial court concluded that Plaintiff was entitled to a fee award. The trial court fixed the lodestar amount and applied a forty-five percent contingency enhancement. The Appellate Division found that the trial court's analysis of the reasonableness of Plaintiff's attorneys' hourly rate, based only on the judge's personal experience, did not satisfy the analysis found in "Rendine v. Pantzer" (141 N.J. 292 (1995)). In this appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the "Rendine" framework had been altered by the United States Supreme Court's decision in "Perdue v. Kenny A. (130 S.Ct. 1662 (2010)). The Court concluded that the mechanism for awarding attorneys' fees (including contingency enhancements) as adopted in "Rendine" remain in full force and effect as the governing principles for awards made pursuant to New Jersey fee-shifting statutes. View "Walker v. Guiffre" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a court may consider as part of its determination of an as-applied challenge to State law limiting places where sexually-oriented businesses may operate, the availability of alternate channels of communication located in another state. Defendant 35 Club began operating an "all nude gentlemen's cabaret" in Sayreville. Shortly after the club opened, the Borough brought suit to permanently enjoin the club from operating its business in the location it chose because it was within 1,000 feet of a public park or residential zone. The issue at trial was whether the applicable statute could constitutionally be applied to the club. The Borough's expert witness identified the so-called alternative channels of communication which still complied with the Borough's zoning statutes; the club's expert found none, and went outside the Borough but within the club's relevant market in making its determination. At the close of evidence, the Chancery Division concluded that the Borough had carried its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence the availability of adequate alternative channels of communication within the market area relevant to the club's business. In evaluating the adequacy of alternative channels of communication when deciding an as-applied constitutional challenge to the State's statute limiting the places where sexually-oriented businesses may operate, the Supreme Court held that trial courts are not precluded from considering the existence of sites that are located outside of New Jersey but that are found within the relevant market area as defined by the parties' experts. View "Borough of Sayreville v. 35 Club, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Selective Insurance Company of America declined to pay Defendant Arthur Rothman, MD's claims for needle electromyography (EMG) tests performed by his physician assistant (PA). Defendant took the insurance company to arbitration and won. Subsequently, he filed a complaint in the Law Division to confirm the arbitration award. He also initiated a proceeding in the Chancery Division to secure a declaration that PAs are authorized to perform EMGs. That complaint was transferred to the Law Division. In a consolidated opinion, the trial court affirmed the arbitration award and ruled that PAs are authorized to perform EMGs. The Appellate Division reversed, and Defendant appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that PAs are not authorized to perform EMG tests, finding that needle EMG tests performed by physician assistants were not in the promulgated lists of authorized procedures from the Board of Medical Examiners. View "Selective Insurance Company of America v. Rothman" on Justia Law

Mathi Kahn-Polzo and other experienced bicyclists were riding downhill on the shoulder of Parsonage Hill Road, which was owned and maintained by Essex County. She rode over a depression on the shoulder, lost control and fell, suffered a catastrophic head injury despite wearing a helmet, and died twenty-six days later. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the County could be held liable under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act (TCA). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Plaintiff Donald Polzo, the Supreme Court could not conclude that the County was on constructive notice of a "dangerous condition" on the shoulder of its roadway that "created a reasonably foreseeable risk" of death, or that the failure to correct the depression before the accident was "palpably unreasonable." View "Polzo v. County of Essex" on Justia Law