The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: However, as we have also noted, we review a sentencing court’s interpretation of the relevant statutes and the Drug Court Manual de novo. Although we generally defer to a sentencing court’s findings of fact and weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, we are not bound by a judge’s […]
Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 3)
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Although a Drug Court judge is not bound by a substance abuse evaluator’s recommendation for in-patient drug treatment, the evaluation is a critical component of a decision to grant or deny admission into the Drug Court program. The substance abuse evaluator’s recommendation can assist in the judge’s consideration […]
Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 2)
The three-judge panel continued in relevant part: A Track One candidate can be admitted to Drug Court only if the court sentences the defendant to special probation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14. Track One candidates therefore must meet all nine eligibility criteria for special probation set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a). If a Track One candidate does not meet any of […]
Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 1)
On February 18, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Cape May County consolidated cases that included State v. Christopher Harris. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 involved whether the nature of a drug court applicant’s prior record made them a “Track One” Drug Court candidate for eligibility and sentencing purposes. Judge Susswein wrote for […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 6)
Justice Albin filed a dissent in which he was joined by Justices LaVecchia and Pierre-Louis. The dissent opined in relevant part: Defendant is entitled to discovery as set forth in Luttenberger but the majority violates the essential tenets of that standard, citing the majority’s announcement that a defendant’s sworn statement contradicting averments in a warrant […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 5)
The Supreme Court majority concluded with the following in relevant part: Applying that standard here, the Court first notes that the requested materials do not pertain to the “determination” of the charges against defendant, but rather to uncharged conduct; they are therefore not “relevant” within the meaning of Rule 3:13-3(b)(1), nor are they exculpatory. As […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 4)
The majority opinion continued in relevant part: The court noted that, like requests for a Franks hearing, such discovery requests “should include affidavits supporting defendant’s assertions of misstatements or omissions in the warrant affidavit. Further, a defendant should, if possible, specify the information he seeks, the basis for his belief the information exists, and the […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 3)
Justice Solomon continued in relevant part: Rule 3:13-3(b)(1) codifies the criminal defendant’s right to automatic post-indictment discovery of the evidence the State has gathered in support of its charges, including “exculpatory information or material” and a list of other “relevant materials.” To qualify as “relevant material,” the evidence must have a tendency in reason to […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 2)
The New Jersey Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: The affidavit did not state that the detective provided the CI with “buy money” with which to purchase the drugs. Based solely on that affidavit, a judge granted a no-knock search warrant for defendant’s home. Defendant moved to suppress the contraband seized during the execution […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 1)
On February 9, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Union County case of State v. Herby Desir. The principal issue concerned the scope of discovery that a defendant is entitled to when pursuing a Franks Hearing. Justice Solomon wrote for the 4-3 majority in relevant part: In this appeal, the Court considers whether […]
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 92
- Next Page »
