The New Jersey Supreme court continued in relevant part: Additionally, we explained in State v. Ruiz (1975) that possession with intent to distribute and distribution of drugs are "demonstrably distinguishable criminal offenses. A charge of possession with intent to...
Drug Crime
Territorial Applicability of the Drug-Induced Death Statute (Part 1)
On May 20, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Passaic County case of State v. Noel Ferguson. The principal issue was whether the State had territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a strict-liability drug induced death charge where a defendant sells heroin in...
Stalking Statute (Part 2)
The three-judge panel continued: "The Legislature framed the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice with a conscious deference to the right of free expression." There are certain limited categories of speech, however, that are criminalized. These include: "speech that is...
Theft Consolidation and Factual Basis (Part 4)
The Court concluded in relevant part with the following: The intricacies of distinguishing between stealing and receiving stolen goods and of the proper procedure for presenting these alternative views of the defendant's involvement may also lead to needless reversals...
Theft Consolidation and Factual Basis (Part 3)
The commentary to the Model Penal Code, after which the Criminal Code was modeled, discussed the consolidation concept as follows: Nevertheless, consolidation cannot eliminate the necessity for careful drafting, nor can it avoid the necessity for a properly specific...
Theft Consolidation and Factual Basis (Part 2)
The pertinent theft consolidation subsection of the statute relied upon by the State provides: Conduct denominated theft or computer criminal activity in this chapter constitutes a single offense, but each episode or transaction may be the subject of a separate...
Theft Consolidation and Factual Basis (Part 1)
On April 19, 2018, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Ocean County case of State v. John Gorman. The principle issue before the Court was whether our courts can rely on the theft consolidation statute to accept a guilty plea to a charge of theft by deception...
Immunity and Overdose Prevention Act (Part 12)
That said, we do not find that the prosecutor had an obligation to subpoena or otherwise obtain defendant's medical records in this case. At most, the records have only limited probative value under N.J.R.E. 401 as corroborative proof, arguably to rebut the State's...
Immunity and Overdose Prevention Act (Part 11)
We note that the standard under N.J.S.A. 24:6J-3 logically calls for an assessment with respect to the perceptions of the person(s) who called for medical assistance i.e., here the officer, and not the unidentified hearsay declarant who apparently called the...
Immunity and Overdose Prevention Act (Part 10)
The grand jury indicted defendant and charged him with third-degree possession of Schedule I CDS. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the OPA protected him. The State contended that defendant's condition was not within the scope of a "drug...
