The Appellate Division concluded with the following in relevant part: If the Legislature intended to repeal or amend, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(g)(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-21(d), N.J.S.A. 2C:2C:52- 20, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-27(b), or overrule Rules 3:28-1(c)(1) and -5(a), it would have done so. Our review of the relevant statutes and legislative history shows no “clear and compelling evidence” of that intent. There is no support for the Middlesex Vicinage judge’s finding […]
Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 3)
Judge Mawla continued in relevant part: For these reasons, the holdings in the Middlesex cases cannot stand because they are contrary to the language in the controlling statutes. “A statute cannot be interpreted to abrogate existing law by implication alone,” because “the Legislature is presumed to intend a consistent body of law.” 1A Singer, Sutherland Statutory […]
Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 2)
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: When a law “has two distinct sections dealing with related matters, amendment to one section is not an amendment to others because it is presumed that if the Legislature had intended an amendment to apply to both sections it would have expressed such an intent.” 1A Norman J. […]
Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 1)
On June 9, 2022, a three-judge appellate panel decided the consolidated Middlesex and Morris County cases of State v. Richard Gomes. The principal issue before the Court under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12 was whether marijuana reform legislation was whether a past diversionary program for a marijuana offense made defendants ineligible for a subsequent diversion. Judge Mawla wrote […]
Narcotics Kingpin Statute (Part 4)
The three-judge panel concluded with the following in relevant part: We stress that the error that constrains us to reverse the leader convictions is not just the trial court’s failure to recite a few adjectives from the case law. Rather, the crux of the error was the failure to tailor the model jury charge in […]
Narcotics Kingpin Statute (Part 3)
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Importantly for purposes of our decision, the State acknowledges that the gravamen of the defense argument is that the trial court did not provide adequate instruction on what “high level” means. We reproduce verbatim the State’s response to that defense contention: On appeal, [Burnett] alleges that since the […]
Narcotics Kingpin Statute (Part 2)
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: “When a jury requests clarification, the trial judge is obligated to clear the confusion.” State v. Conway (App. Div. 1984) (citing United States v. McCall, 592 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir. 1979)). In State v. Parsons, we noted that, “jury questions present a glimpse into a jury’s deliberative process.” (App. Div. 1994). […]
Narcotics Kingpin Statute (Part 1)
On March 7, 2022, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Essex County case of State v. Barry Berry. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3 concerned the adequacy of the jury instruction regarding the narcotics “kingpin” statute. Judge Susswein wrote for the Court in relevant part: As we have noted, the judge read verbatim from the […]
Parole and Mistaken Incarceration (Part 1)
On August 3, 2021, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Essex County case of State v. Paulino Njango. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2 was whether the defendant’s parole supervision period had to be reduced for time spent mistakenly incarcerated. Justice Albin wrote for a unanimous Court in relevant part: As noted earlier, “parole […]
Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 5)
The three-judge panel concluded with the following in relevant part: So too a trial court’s determination whether a Track Two candidate’s admission to Drug Court would pose a danger to the community should be made with regard to a TASC evaluation. That professional diagnostic assessment might inform not only whether the circumstances giving rise to […]
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 13
- Next Page »
English
Spanish