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 […]

Justice Fasciale continued in relevant part: We conclude the error was clearly capable of producing an unjust result because such a suggestion — that being a supervisor (element three) is sufficient to establish that a defendant occupied a high-level position (element four) — could have led the jury to find the State proved defendants were […]

The Court continued in relevant part: We appreciate the trial judge’s inclination to reiterate only the words of the model jury charge. Depending on the question posed, many times it is entirely appropriate to do so. But we encourage judges, when the law is clear, to respond directly to unambiguous and specific “yes” or “no” […]

On June 7, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Essex County case of State  v. Barry Berry. The principal issue before the Court under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3 concerned whether the judge’s erroneous response to a jury question was a basis to reverse the “drug kingpin” conviction. Justice Fasciale wrote for a unanimous Court in […]

The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: The equal protection analysis “under the New Jersey Constitution slightly differs from the analysis of those fundamental rights under the United States Constitution. When a statute is challenged on the ground that it does not apply evenhandedly to similarly situated people, the State’s equal protection jurisprudence […]