On June 23, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Morris County case of State v. Craig Szemple. The principal issue concerned whether the State can be compelled to search its file to determine the existence of information in this post-conviction context, where defendant Craig Szemple seeks to obtain any statements or reports memorializing […]

The three-judge appellate panel concluded in relevant part: The court’s dismissal of the PDVA complaint against defendant following a retrial on the merits also constituted a determination that defendant lacked any fault permitting a forfeiture of weapons, and the State otherwise failed to present any evidence that issuance of a handgun purchase permit or firearms […]

The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: We reject the literal interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b) urged by the State because it cannot be logically reconciled with the PDVA’s legislative scheme. The two-year bar is incorporated in a broader statutory provision explaining that “in proceedings in which complaints for restraining orders have been filed, the court shall grant any […]

On June 24, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Gloucester County case of State v. W.C. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21 was whether the State could forfeit the defendant’s weapons after a final domestic violence restraining order was vacated. Former Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Vernoia wrote in relevant part: The State contends […]

On June 17, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Hudson County case of State v. Kephine Oguta. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:3-4 concerned the applicability of a self-defense charge to the use of a knife to repel an attack. Judge Gilson wrote for the Court in relevant part: In short, these cases teach […]

The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: The Legislature tacitly acknowledged such a purpose in the Assembly Bill, noting: Current law provides thirteen mitigating factors that the court may consider when sentencing a defendant. The only mitigating factor related to the age of a youthful defendant permits the court to consider whether the […]

The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Because defendant will be resentenced, she has yet to incur a penalty within the meaning of the savings statute. The new mitigating factor has been in force for months, as it “took effect immediately.” Therefore, defendant must be allowed to argue its applicability at her resentencing. A retroactivity […]

Judge Alvarez continued in relevant part: Here, the situation differs insofar as defendant will be sentenced a third time for reasons unrelated to the adoption of the statute. But the result is unchanged. The judge will be viewing defendant “as she stands before the court on that day.” He should apply the new law because […]

The three-judge panel continued in relevant part: The abbreviated supplemental language in the motion order denying leave to appeal was not intended to circumscribe the scope of a full resentencing on the merits. It was a decision on an emergent leave to appeal motion focused on access to DCPP records. It was not intended to […]

On May 17, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Hudson County case of State v. Latonia Bellamy. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 was whether the defendant should have received the benefit of a new mitigating factor regarding her young age at her re-sentencing. Presiding Judge Alvarez wrote for the Appellate Division in relevant […]