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 […]

The concurring opinion continued in relevant part: As a second illustration, imagine that C, a stranger, suddenly accosts D on a sidewalk at night, brandishes a knife and pulls D into a dark alleyway, and begins to sexually assault D. D grabs the knife away from C and plunges it into C’s neck. C staggers […]

In a rare Appellate Division concurring opinion, Presiding Judge Sabatino wrote in relevant part: I join in Judge Gooden Brown’s scholarly opinion and its application of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2(a) (third-degree endangering an injured victim) to the specific facts of this case. I write to punctuate some concerns about that statute’s imposition of a duty to render aid, when applied […]

The Court continued in relevant part: Arguably, other circumstances not present here, such as Anthony continuing to pose a threat after he had been stabbed by defendant, are addressed by other defenses, like the defense of necessity. Similar to “use of force,” necessity, also referred to as the “choice of evils” defense, State v. Tate (1986), […]

On May 13, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Essex County case of State v. Julian Sanders. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2 involved the application of a self-defense charge to a case involving the endangerment of an injured victim. Judge Gooden-Brown wrote for the Appellate Division in relevant part: An interpretation of the […]

Justice LaVecchia concluded with the following in relevant part: Yarbough did not supplant the principle that courts have discretion over whether to impose consecutive sentences in appropriate cases. The Yarbough criteria were adopted to channel that discretion, not to withdraw it; they are qualitative, not quantitative, and applying them involves more than merely counting the […]