Justia New Jersey Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2017, defendant Shlawrence Ross was indicted for attempted murder and other offenses following an alleged exchange of gunfire with police officers. During the incident, he was wounded and a bullet lodged in his abdomen. In 2022, on advice of his counsel, he underwent elective surgery to remove the bullet. The state applied for a search warrant to obtain the removed bullet from the hospital and sought all medical records regarding the defendant’s treatment. The trial court denied the applications, reasoning that the bullet was shielded from the State’s access as it resulted from defence counsel’s “conscious litigation choice”. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, stating that the Fourth Amendment, concerning search and seizure, rather than the Sixth Amendment and reciprocal discovery rules, was the appropriate legal framework.The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s judgment. It held that the proper analysis for determining whether the State can obtain this physical evidence rests within the principles of search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Neither the Fifth nor the Sixth Amendment would preclude issuing a valid search warrant for the bullet in this case, and the trial court should have determined whether there exists probable cause on which to issue such a warrant. The case was remanded back to the trial court for a determination of probable cause. View "State v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of New Jersey, in its decision, examined whether the State can obtain from defense counsel an affidavit that is physical evidence of a crime, under New Jersey discovery rules. The case revolves around a murder where two witnesses identified the defendant, Isaiah J. Knight, as the shooter. Later, one of the witnesses was allegedly kidnapped and forced to write an affidavit recanting his original statement. The prosecution believed the defendant's alleged co-conspirators gave this affidavit to the defense counsel. The State filed a motion to compel discovery of this document, which was granted by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Division.The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Court held that the sought-after affidavit is physical evidence of the crimes of witness tampering and kidnapping for which the defendant and others have been charged. Therefore, it is subject to reciprocal discovery under Rule 3:3-13(b)(2)(B) and (D). The Court reasoned that the affidavit, allegedly the outcome of a kidnapping and witness intimidation plot, is not the product of the defense investigation or attorney work product and hence does not fall within the exception to the discovery obligations. The Court found that compelling defense counsel to turn over an item in his possession that is physical evidence of a crime does not trigger the same Sixth Amendment concerns. The Court also rejected the defendant's argument that compelling the discovery of this affidavit violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. View "State v. Knight" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of New Jersey examined whether N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 limits an arbitrator’s authority to penalize conduct under the Tenure Employees Hearing Law (TEHL), N.J.S.A. 18A:6-10 to -18.1. The defendant, the Board of Education for the Town of West New York Public Schools, brought tenure charges against the plaintiff, Amada Sanjuan, for conduct unbecoming. The charges were based on alleged false claims made by Sanjuan about an accident at the school. An arbitrator concluded that Sanjuan's conduct warranted a penalty, but not dismissal. The arbitrator demoted Sanjuan from her tenured administrative position to a tenured teaching role, without backpay. Sanjuan sought to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by demoting her. The Appellate Division agreed, interpreting N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 to allow sustained tenure charges to result only in termination or loss of salary, but not demotion. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed, holding that N.J.S.A. 18A:6-16 provides the basis to refer a case to arbitration but does not limit an arbitrator’s authority to impose penalties. Therefore, the Supreme Court reinstated the arbitrator's award demoting Sanjuan. View "Sanjuan v. School District of West New York" on Justia Law

Ocean Walk, LLC, a company that operates a casino and other entertainment facilities in New Jersey, sought coverage under its commercial property insurance policies for losses sustained during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company claimed that the presence of the virus in its facilities and the government-mandated temporary suspension of its operations constituted a “direct physical loss” or “direct physical damage” to its property under the terms of the insurance policies issued by several defendants. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, however, disagreed with this interpretation and held that Ocean Walk’s allegations failed to meet the policy language's requirements. The court ruled that to demonstrate a “direct physical loss” or “direct physical damage,” Ocean Walk needed to show that its property was destroyed or altered in such a way that rendered it unusable or uninhabitable. The court noted that the company’s allegations did not suggest that the property suffered a physical change; rather, the company was simply not allowed to use its property due to the executive orders. Furthermore, the court ruled that even if Ocean Walk had pled facts supporting the finding of a covered “loss” or “damage,” the losses it claimed were excluded from coverage by the policies’ contamination exclusion. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of Ocean Walk’s complaint. View "AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that the State's witness tampering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a), is not unconstitutionally overbroad, but it may have been unconstitutionally applied to the defendant, William Hill, in this case. Hill was initially convicted of first-degree carjacking and third-degree witness tampering. While detained awaiting trial, Hill sent a letter to the carjacking victim, A.Z., asserting his innocence and asking her to reconsider her identification of him as the perpetrator. A.Z. reported the letter to the police, resulting in a charge of witness tampering. The court concluded that Hill's letter did not explicitly ask A.Z. to testify falsely or withhold testimony, leading the Supreme Court of New Jersey to rule that it may have been unconstitutionally applied in Hill's case. The court vacated Hill's witness tampering conviction and remanded the case for a new trial on that charge, but did not vacate his carjacking conviction. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

In this case, defendant Curtis Gartrell fled from police near Newark Penn Station, leaving behind a suitcase containing handguns, ammunition, illegal narcotics, and cash. Gartrell was later apprehended and charged with possessory offenses and resisting arrest. He filed a motion to suppress evidence recovered from the warrantless search of the suitcase, arguing that he did not abandon the suitcase and therefore maintained standing to challenge the search. The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that Gartrell's flight did not indicate an intention to abandon the suitcase. The State appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed, holding that Gartrell had abandoned the suitcase.The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The court applied the three-factor test from State v. Carvajal, which assesses (1) whether a person has control or dominion over the property, (2) whether the person knowingly and voluntarily relinquishes any possessory or ownership interest in the property, and (3) whether there are other apparent or known owners of the property. The court found that Gartrell's flight from police and deliberate abandonment of the suitcase in a public place indicated a clear intent to relinquish his possessory interest in the bag. Furthermore, there was no evidence of anyone else's interest in the suitcase, including the person Gartrell referred to as "Spoon," who remained unidentified. Therefore, the court concluded that Gartrell lacked standing to challenge the seizure and search of the suitcase. View "State v. Gartrell" on Justia Law

In the case State v. Calvin Fair, the Supreme Court of New Jersey had to decide whether a prosecution for terroristic threats under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a), based on a mens rea of recklessness, is constitutional. The defendant, Calvin Fair, following a conflict with the police, had made threatening statements on Facebook, including knowledge of where the police officers lived and what cars they drove. He was charged under a statute which made it a crime to threaten to commit any crime of violence with the purpose to terrorize another or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror.The court held that a mental state of recklessness is constitutionally sufficient for a “true threats” prosecution under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a), as defined in this context as “morally culpable conduct, involving a ‘deliberate decision to endanger another.’” The state must also prove that a reasonable person similarly situated to the victim would have viewed the message as threatening violence. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the Appellate Division and remanded the case for a new trial.The court also held that the jury must unanimously agree on whether the defendant violated N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a), (b), or both. This was because the terroristic threats statute listed in the disjunctive two separately enumerated, alternative crimes of terroristic threats. View "State v. Fair" on Justia Law

Plaintiff William DeSimone and a class of plaintiffs brought a suit against Springpoint Senior Living, Inc. (Springpoint) alleging that the company violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) with regard to representations about its entrance fee refund policy. The plaintiffs sought the return of “all monies received or collected from” them by Springpoint. The New Jersey Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the refund provision in N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 is limited in scope, providing relief only to victims of food-related fraud as identified in Chapter 347 and does not extend to all CFA violations. The court explained that the plain meanings of “within” and “declared herein” suggest that N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11 is limited in application to the provisions of Chapter 347. The court noted that Chapter 347 is not the only conduct-specific supplementary statute to provide additional rights and remedies, including consumer refunds. The court concluded that the allegations were unrelated to misrepresentations of the “identity of food,” hence, plaintiffs are not entitled to a full refund under N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.11. The court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court. View "DeSimone v. Springpoint Senior Living, Inc" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division in a case concerning the New Jersey State Health Benefits Program Act. The case was brought by James Meyers, a retired state police officer, who challenged the State Health Benefits Commission's (SHBC) decision that he was not exempt from health benefits premium-sharing obligations imposed by the Act. The Act requires public employees to contribute towards the cost of their healthcare benefits upon retirement, with an exemption for employees who had 20 or more years of creditable service in a state or locally administered retirement system as of June 28, 2011. Meyers had 17 years and 9 months of creditable service at that time. Upon his retirement in 2015, he was erroneously offered retiree health benefits at no premium cost. This mistake was discovered in 2017, and the state began deducting premium-sharing contributions from his pension payments.The Court held that Meyers was not eligible for the exemption under the Act, and correcting the erroneous exemption was proper. The court found that neither Meyers' subsequent service nor his purchase of four years of military service credit could change the fact that he did not meet the Act's requirement as of June 28, 2011. The court also agreed with the Appellate Division's determination that it was not necessary to reach the issue of equitable estoppel. The court noted that a governmental entity cannot be estopped from refusing to take an action that it was never authorized to take under the law, even if it had mistakenly agreed to that action. In this case, the SHBC was never authorized to offer Meyers free healthcare benefits, an act beyond the jurisdiction of the SHBC and therefore ultra vires in the primary sense. Thus, the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply. View "Meyers v. State Health Benefits Commission" on Justia Law

In the case at hand, the Supreme Court of New Jersey considered whether the safeguards relating to eyewitness identification evidence should apply when lawyers meet with witnesses to prepare for trial. The case involved Brandon Washington, who was charged with two counts of attempted murder after shooting two people at a "Ladies Night" event. During the initial investigation, several witnesses selected Washington's picture from a photo array. Later, during trial preparation, an assistant prosecutor showed some witnesses the same photo array they had seen before or a single photo of Washington from Facebook. The witnesses later identified Washington in court. One witness identified Washington for the first time at trial.The Supreme Court held that witnesses who have made a prior identification should not be shown photos of the defendant during trial preparation, neither new photos of the defendant for the first time nor, absent good reason, the same photos they previously reviewed. If a party can demonstrate a good reason to show witnesses a photo of the defendant they previously identified, the party must prepare and disclose a written record of what occurred. If, however, a witness has not previously identified a suspect, investigators can conduct an identification procedure during pretrial preparation in accordance with the principles set forth in State v. Henderson. In this case, the court remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing under United States v. Wade to determine the admissibility of the identification evidence. View "State v. Washington" on Justia Law