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 […]
Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 4)
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: However, as we have also noted, we review a sentencing court’s interpretation of the relevant statutes and the Drug Court Manual de novo. Although we generally defer to a sentencing court’s findings of fact and weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors, we are not bound by a judge’s […]
Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 3)
The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Although a Drug Court judge is not bound by a substance abuse evaluator’s recommendation for in-patient drug treatment, the evaluation is a critical component of a decision to grant or deny admission into the Drug Court program. The substance abuse evaluator’s recommendation can assist in the judge’s consideration […]
Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 2)
The three-judge panel continued in relevant part: A Track One candidate can be admitted to Drug Court only if the court sentences the defendant to special probation pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14. Track One candidates therefore must meet all nine eligibility criteria for special probation set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a). If a Track One candidate does not meet any of […]
Drug Court Applicant Classifications (Part 1)
On February 18, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Cape May County consolidated cases that included State v. Christopher Harris. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 involved whether the nature of a drug court applicant’s prior record made them a “Track One” Drug Court candidate for eligibility and sentencing purposes. Judge Susswein wrote for […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 6)
Justice Albin filed a dissent in which he was joined by Justices LaVecchia and Pierre-Louis. The dissent opined in relevant part: Defendant is entitled to discovery as set forth in Luttenberger but the majority violates the essential tenets of that standard, citing the majority’s announcement that a defendant’s sworn statement contradicting averments in a warrant […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 5)
The Supreme Court majority concluded with the following in relevant part: Applying that standard here, the Court first notes that the requested materials do not pertain to the “determination” of the charges against defendant, but rather to uncharged conduct; they are therefore not “relevant” within the meaning of Rule 3:13-3(b)(1), nor are they exculpatory. As […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 4)
The majority opinion continued in relevant part: The court noted that, like requests for a Franks hearing, such discovery requests “should include affidavits supporting defendant’s assertions of misstatements or omissions in the warrant affidavit. Further, a defendant should, if possible, specify the information he seeks, the basis for his belief the information exists, and the […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 3)
Justice Solomon continued in relevant part: Rule 3:13-3(b)(1) codifies the criminal defendant’s right to automatic post-indictment discovery of the evidence the State has gathered in support of its charges, including “exculpatory information or material” and a list of other “relevant materials.” To qualify as “relevant material,” the evidence must have a tendency in reason to […]
Franks Hearings and Discovery (Part 2)
The New Jersey Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: The affidavit did not state that the detective provided the CI with “buy money” with which to purchase the drugs. Based solely on that affidavit, a judge granted a no-knock search warrant for defendant’s home. Defendant moved to suppress the contraband seized during the execution […]
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 62
- Next Page »
