Criminal Law Blog

The Appellate Division concluded with the following in relevant part: Moreover, following Bruen, we upheld the constitutionality of the "public health, safety or welfare," requirement for the issuance of a firearms purchaser identification card or handgun purchase...

On August 10, 2023, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Middlesex County case of State v. Daandre Wade. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 concerned whether the indictment for unlawful gun possession should be dismissed in light of the U.S. Supreme...

"Chief Justice Rabner concluded with the following in relevant part: ”Consideration" encompasses "mutual promises to do some future act." Friedman v. Tappan Dev. Corp. (1956) (quoting Rich v. Doneghey, 177 P. 86, 90 (Okla. 1918)). The term also includes conditional...

On August 7, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Hudson County case of State v. Jason O’Donnell. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2 concerned whether unsuccessful candidates for public office could be convicted for accepting a bribe. Chief Justice...

The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: With regard to the best interests of the victim and any child, the court notes that that minor child herein is not W.M-H.'s child. The court also highlights the short nature of the parties' relationship. The...

The Court continued in relevant part: As for any previous history of domestic violence between E.W. and defendant, including threats, harassment and physical abuse, there is no evidence of such in this record. The parties dated for a brief period of time,...

Judge Sanders continued in relevant part: Considering these express statements by the Legislature and finding them to be essentially synergistic and complimentary in purpose, the court concludes that the application of immunity to purported harassing conduct by way of...

On January 5, 2023, the Essex County Superior Court decided the case of E.W. v. W.M-H. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29 concerned whether the domestic violence defendant could invoke statutory immunity to exclude his reports to DCPP regarding the...

The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: Defendant contends that the "core purpose" of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to protect "defendants against the harassment of unfair, repeated prosecutions." But the trial court explicitly found that defendant...

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...