The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: We deem it noteworthy that Bruen endorsed the concept of shall-issue licensing regimes without citing any historical analogues. The Court, in other words, acknowledged the constitutionality of modern licensing systems...
On December 22, 2023, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Bergen County case of In the Matter of the Appeal of the Denial of R.W.T.’s Application. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 concerned whether Petitioner could be denied a gun permit based on false...
The Appellate Division concluded with the following in relevant part: The evidence indicated Edwards was convicted of a first-time offense for shoplifting. Because the matter had been decided summarily, according to Pennsylvania law, the offense must have involved...
On December 5, 2023, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Mercer County case of Mary Horne v. Jasi Mikae Edwards. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2 concerned whether a past shoplifting conviction was a basis to require the forfeiture of public office....
The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: Although there is no need to make any further inquiry, our decision is also supported by the legislative history, which suggests an intent to create an expansive scheme to criminalize an increasing number of...
On December 7, 2023, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Somerset County case of State v. Jose Martinez-Mejia. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:13-6 concerned whether a luring offense could be committed completely within the victim’s home. Judge Chase wrote...
Justice Solomon continued in relevant part: Defendant was in custody at the hospital in light of the police presence around her bed area. But no interrogation or its functional equivalent occurred before her spontaneous and unsolicited admission. Miranda warnings were...
On November 20, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Hudson County case of State v. Amandeep Tiwana. The principal issue concerned whether the functional equivalent of an interrogation occurred that resulted in the defendant’s admission. Justice Solomon...
Thus, although Court finds DRE testimony sufficiently reliable to be admitted in our courts, it adopts several limitations on the admissibility and probative use of a DRE’s opinion in criminal and quasi-criminal cases: First, a DRE is only allowed to opine in court...
Judge Sabatino continued in relevant part: “Ordinarily, a key question to be answered in determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact will be whether it can be (and has been) tested.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593....