Justice Wainer Apter continued in relevant part: We disagree that allowing a retrial here would confer any unfair advantage on the State. Trial ended before defendant called a single witness or introduced a single piece of evidence. Defendant conceded at oral argument...
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Second, defendant frames the question presented as whether "prejudice to the State" can "constitute a 'manifest necessity' to declare a mistrial without triggering the double jeopardy bar to a re-trial."...
On August 9, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Hudson County case of State v. Stephen Zadroga. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9 concerned whether double jeopardy barred a retrial of the charges unrelated to intoxication after a mistrial was...
The United States Supreme Court concluded with the following in relevant part: A speaker’s fear of mistaking whether a statement is a threat, fear of the legal system getting that judgment wrong, and fear of incurring legal costs all may lead a speaker to swallow...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature, but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than...
On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Counterman v. Colorado. The principal issue that relates to New Jersey’s stalking statue (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10) concerned what criminal mind state is required for a stalking conviction. Justice Kagan...
The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded with the following in relevant part: The court also recommended that the Model Jury Charge Committee consider the advisability of revising the model instruction for the leader offense to incorporate this language...
Justice Fasciale continued in relevant part: We conclude the error was clearly capable of producing an unjust result because such a suggestion -- that being a supervisor (element three) is sufficient to establish that a defendant occupied a high-level position...
The Court continued in relevant part: We appreciate the trial judge's inclination to reiterate only the words of the model jury charge. Depending on the question posed, many times it is entirely appropriate to do so. But we encourage judges, when the law is clear, to...
On June 7, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Essex County case of State v. Barry Berry. The principal issue before the Court under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3 concerned whether the judge’s erroneous response to a jury question was a basis to reverse the “drug...