When the trial resumed, defense counsel informed the court that the limiting instruction advised the jury that defendant's silence could be used for impeachment purposes. Counsel requested a clarifying instruction to fix this error, which the trial court issued. This...
Know Your Rights
The Importance of Remaining Silent After Arrest: Part 1
In the case of State v. James Kucinski, decided on January 30, 2017, Justice Solomon wrote for a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court. In this appeal, the Court considered whether cross-examination regarding facts to which defendant testified at trial, but omitted in...
Removal of Car Passengers: When Circumstances Present Reason
As to the State's contention that the Smith standard has been eroded by subsequent decisions, the Court observes that no decision since Smith, including Sloane, has implicitly or explicitly modified or overruled Smith. Here, the Court reaffirms the Smith...
Removal of Car Passengers: Lawful Traffic Stops
To be lawful, an automobile stop must be based on reasonable and articulable suspicion that an offense, including a minor traffic offense, has been or is being committed. S.R. failed to wear his seatbelt and therefore violated the traffic code. *The stop followed the...
Removal of Car Passengers: Justification
Defendant later moved to suppress the seized narcotics and paraphernalia; the trial court denied the motion. The court found the stop to be lawful because of the passenger's failure to wear a seatbelt. The court also found the passenger's removal from the car to be...
Removal of Car Passengers: Proper Responses
On January 31, 2017, Justice Timpone, wrote for a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court in the case of State v. Tawain Bacome. In this appeal, the Court clarified the circumstances under which police officers may require a passenger in an automobile to exit a vehicle...
Eighth Amendment and Victim Input
In Bosse v. Oklahoma, decided on October 11, 2016, the United State Supreme Court held per Booth v. Maryland (1987), “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence that does not relate directly to the circumstances of...
Sports Gambling and Forfeiture
On August 26, 2016, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided the case State v. Amboy National Bank, under Docket No. a-0703-14. The principle issue of the decision concerned and whether operation of a sports pool amounts to the promotion of gambling under N.J.S.A....
The De Minimis Statute – State v Zarrilli
In State v. Zarrilli, another published Law Division case, the court considered the following factors in evaluating a de minimis application: (a) Defendant's background, experience and character as indications of whether he or she knew or should have known the law was...
The De Minimis Statute – State v. Halloran
In State v. Halloran, decided on August 24, 2014, and approved for publication on July 29, 2016, the Superior Court of Morris County was called upon to decide a motion to dismiss a charge under our criminal code’s “De Minimis Infraction” statute. The charge was that...
