Justice Solomon continued in relevant part: In State v. Vega-Larregui, the Court considered whether the right to a fair grand jury is violated by a virtual format allegedly limiting the participation of racial minorities, older citizens, and those of modest means. See 246 N.J. 94, 117 (2021). The Court rejected the defendant’s representative-cross-section claim, citing […]

The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Defendant argues that he was deprived of his constitutional rights to be present and represented by counsel during the pre-voir dire disqualification, excusal, and deferral of jurors. A defendant’s right to be present at trial and during critical stages of the adversarial process is guaranteed by […]

Justice Solomon continued in relevant part: The juror yield for pools summoned beginning on September 21, 2020 was comparable to the Bergen Vicinage’s February 2020 yield. Defense counsel attacked the hybrid process, claiming a lack of transparency and of juror demographic data; the purportedly unclear standards with which prospective jurors were excused and deferred; and […]

The Court continued in relevant part: All case-specific questioning was conducted during virtual voir dire before a judge, counsel, and the parties. Following virtual voir dire, a fraction of prospective jurors reported in person to courts for the final phase of selection with facemask and social-distancing precautions observed. New Jersey’s first jury trial under the […]

On August 16, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Bergen County case of State v. Wildemar A. Dangcil. The principal issue concerned the right to a representative cross section of the community in a defendant’s jury pool. Justice Solomon wrote for a unanimous Court in relevant part: The Court considers defendant Wildemar A. […]

The three-judge panel concluded with the following in relevant part: The two offenses charged under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-20 are “separate and distinct” because they have different elements and require different proofs. See State v. Krieger (App. Div. 1995) (finding duplicitous a single indictment count charging violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(a) or 3(b), which were “alternative crimes with disparate elements”). When two distinct offenses are charged […]

The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: We recognize that the absence of instructions did not directly impact the charge that Rodriguez held herself “out to the public or any person as being eligible to engage” in the practice of medicine under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-20(c). And there was “some evidence” upon which the grand jury could rely in […]

On August 25, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Passaic County case of State v. Yvonne Jeanotte-Rodriguez, et al. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:21-20 concerned the specific activities that a medical assistant can legally perform. Presiding Judge Ostrer wrote for the panel in relevant part: In these three appeals, consolidated for our opinion, the […]

Chief Justice Rabner wrote a separate concurring opinion to ask the Committee on Evidence to examine whether N.J.R.E. 803(c)(25) should be amended. Noting that the federal counterpart to Rule 803(c)(25) contains an additional requirement beyond those of the New Jersey rule — to be admissible, a statement against interest must not only be against the […]

Justice Albin continued in relevant part: Applying the Strickland/Fritz test, the Court finds that Hannah has shown both that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, to a degree of reasonable probability, the outcome of the trial would have been different but for counsel’s mistakes, which were magnified by mistakes made […]