The Appellate Division continued in relevant part: Because the charges were pending when defendant was sentenced, the allegations were unproven. As the Attorney General candidly acknowledged during oral argument before us, if defendant is acquitted on the new charges, he would have a valid basis to move for resentencing. See State v. Murray (2000) (providing […]
Plea Agreements and New Charges (Part 1)
On June 24, 2022, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Atlantic County case of State v. Jaime Cambrelen. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 concerned the legality of a plea agreement conditioned upon the defendant not being charged with a new offense before sentencing. Judge Rose wrote for the panel in relevant part: In our […]
Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 2)
The New Jersey Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: The Legislature’s use of the language “take effect immediately” when it adopted N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) thus connotes prospective application. See L. 2020, c. 110. We find no suggestion in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(14) — let alone the clear, strong and imperative declaration that our law demands for the presumption of prospective effect to be overcome — that the […]
Youth and Withholding Imprisonment (Part 1)
On June 16, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Essex County case of State v. Rahee Lane. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 was whether the youthful defendant mitigating factor had retroactive or prospective application. Justice Patterson wrote for the 6-1 majority in relevant part: First, we consider the language of the amendment. […]
Marijuana and Diversionary Programs (Part 4)
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 […]
Jurisdiction and Subsequent Prosecutions (Part 2)
The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded with the following in relevant part: We agree with the trial court and Appellate that the federal proceeding did not culminate in a jury finding that defendants had in fact murdered James. This distinction sufficiently distinguishes the State’s interest in prosecuting defendants for murder from the United States’ interest […]
Jurisdiction and Subsequent Prosecutions (Part 1)
On June 8, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Atlantic County case of State v. Mykal Derry. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 was whether the state prosecution was permissible after a federal conviction for drug and firearm charges that were linked to the murder. Justice Solomon wrote for a unanimous Court in […]
- 1
- 2
- 3
- …
- 93
- Next Page »
English
Spanish