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 DCPP referrals would render an absurd result. Both statutes place primacy on the protection of children […]

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 plaintiff’s child abuse. Judge Joshua Sanders wrote for the Court. Judge Sanders had a distinguished […]

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 had not been “subjected to the quantum of oppression, harassment, or egregious deprivation necessary to warrant […]

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 that the State did not intentionally goad a mistrial, and there was no […]

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.” (emphasis added.) Defendant is correct that the Appellate Division stated “once the sudden bombshell about the […]

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 declared after learning that the defendant’s blood sample was lost. Justice Wainer Apter […]

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 words that are in fact not true threats. Insistence on […]

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 recklessness. The First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas. Among […]

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 wrote for the 5-justice majority in relevant part: From 2014 to 2016, petitioner Billy […]

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 from Alexander or at least to include a footnote or notation explaining that this language in Alexander provides further instruction on […]