On March 20, 2025, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Morris County case of State v. Ahjhir Jones. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 concerned the defendant’s Recovery Court application after he pleaded guilty to a gun charge. Judge Natali wrote for...
Decided On March 14, 2025, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Middlesex County case of State v. Thomas Canales. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9 concerned whether the defendant could be tried again after his two trials ended in a hung jury and an...
On February 7, 2025, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Somerset County case of State v. Cindy Keogh. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2 whether a “Endangering an Injured Victim” charge could be based on a delay in calling 9-1-1. The case involved a...
On January 23, 2025, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Essex County case of State v. Stephanie Martinez. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4 concerned the propriety of a passion provocation manslaughter conviction when a jury also found that the State...
The Appellate Division concluded with the following in relevant part: While we are mindful of the administrative burdens that will result from remanding a potentially large number of pipeline cases for new jury trials, we are not prepared to hold that the defendants...
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Based on the opinion's clear directive, we are reticent to conclude that the Erlinger majority meant for the constitutional rights recognized in Apprendi and its progeny to be treated essentially as a second-class...
On November 27, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Atlantic County case of State v. Jamel Carlton. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3 concerned to application of New Jersey’s persistent offender sentencing statue in light of the U.S. Supreme...
On December 20, 2024, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Essex County case of State v. Jeremy Arrington. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 concerned whether a defendant could testify to their alleged insanity without accompanying expert testimony....
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Defendant attempts to distinguish Cuccurullo because it was "in the context of applying motor vehicle penalties" rather than criminal penalties under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26. This distinction is immaterial in the present...
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: In the context of applying the enhanced penalties under N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 for driving while suspended for DWI, we previously determined in Cuccurullo that a defendant is "'under suspension' from the time that the...