The 1999 amendment to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 undermines the State’s position that N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2) permits the State to appeal a special probation Drug Court sentence. If N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2) already authorized the State to appeal special probation Drug Court sentences for defendants otherwise subject to the presumption of incarceration, it was wholly unnecessary to amend N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 […]
State’s Drug Court Appeals: Part 5
In its imposition of defendant’s Drug Court sentence, the court did not apply the presumption of incarceration under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d), nor could it. The court never made findings permitting defendant to overcome the presumption of incarceration, and the court was not required to do so. To the contrary, defendant was sentenced pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, […]
State’s Drug Court Appeals: Part 4
The aforementioned nine factors are: (1) the person has undergone a professional diagnostic assessment to determine whether and to what extent the person is drug or alcohol dependent and would benefit from treatment; and (2) the person is a drug or alcohol dependent person within the meaning of 2C:35-2 and was drug or alcohol dependent […]
State’s Drug Court Appeals: Part 3
In its adoption of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, the Legislature established an exception to the presumption of incarceration for first and second-degree offenders that is independent of any determination required under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d). Although a probationary sentence “is almost never appropriate under the Code’s sentencing provisions” for first and second-degree offenders, a special probation Drug Court sentence […]
State’s Drug Court Appeals: Part 2
The State argues defendant was convicted of second-degree leaving the scene of a fatal accident, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5.1, and was therefore subject to the presumption of incarceration. The State reasons that because the court imposed the non-custodial sentence of special probation Drug Court sentence for the second-degree offense, its appeal is expressly authorized. We disagree. The […]
State’s Drug Court Appeals: Part 1
On November 21, 2017, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Camden County Superior Court case of State v. Hyland. The principle issue under N.J.S.A 2C:44-7 was whether the State has the authority to appeal the sentencing of a defendant to special Drug Court probation under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14. Monmouth County’s own Judge Vernoia delivered the opinion […]
Appellate Deference & Video Evidence: Part 4
The Court rejects the de novo standard introduced in Diaz-Bridges. A policy of deferring to findings of fact of a trial court based on its review of video and documentary evidence has certain tangible benefits. When more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the review of a video recording, a trial court’s factual […]
Appellate Deference & Video Evidence: Part 3
Generally, on appellate review, a trial court’s factual findings in support of granting or denying a motion to suppress must be upheld when those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The issue here, however, concerns the level of deference owed to a trial court’s factual findings based solely on its review […]
Appellate Deference & Video Evidence: Part 2
The interrogation proceeded, and defendant continued to suggest that he did not want to speak. Eventually, he indicated that “it happened” when, after a shower, he was drying himself and his daughter entered the bathroom. In ruling on the motion, the trial court relied solely on its review of the video-recorded interrogation. Because it found […]
Appellate Deference & Video Evidence: Part 1
On June 21, 2017, in the case of State v. S.S., Justice Albin wrote for a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court. In this interlocutory appeal, the Court determines two issues: what is the appropriate standard of appellate review of a trial court’s factual findings based solely on the court’s viewing of a video-recorded police interrogation, […]
English
Spanish