Justice Patterson concluded in relevant part: In combination with disclosures concerning the State’s experts, those enumerated categories of documents enable a person facing an SVPA commitment hearing to present evidence and counter the State’s proofs. Those documents go to the heart of the State’s burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. The State’s experts’ […]
Discovery and the SVPA (Part 3)
The unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The Court concurs with P.D. that Rule 4:74-7 does not govern civil commitment proceedings under the SVPA. The limited discovery available under Rule 4:74-7 is focused on the terms of the general civil commitment statute, not that of the SVPA, and the Rule was not […]
Discovery and the SVPA (Part 2)
Justice Patterson continued in relevant part: A person facing a civil commitment hearing under the SVPA may not take discovery under Rule 4:10-1, Rule 4:17-1, or Rule 4:18-1. The discovery permitted by those rules is not authorized by the SVPA and cannot be accomplished on the expedited schedule that the statute prescribes. However, based on […]
Opening Statements and Jury Instructions (Part 5)
Justice Albin continued for the unanimous court in relevant part: When, in his opening statement, the prosecutor alerts the jury that it will hear testimony that the defendant confessed to the crime and then fails to present evidence to support that anticipatory pledge, the defendant’s fair-trial rights are directly implicated. A prosecutor — even one […]
Extended Term Sentence Applications (Part 1)
On July 7, 2020, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Somerset County case of State v. Rahsjahn Courtney. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12 was whether the prosecution was required to formally apply for an extended term sentence in order to prevent the court from imposing less than what the plea agreement recommended. Justice […]
Megan’s Law Risk Assessment Scale (Part 2)
The Appellate panel continued in relevant part: B. The evidence presented by J.G. and C.C. Under existing case law, a registrant can challenge his or her individual classification, but cannot challenge the RRAS itself. Nevertheless, we do not read In re G.B. or its progeny as forever precluding a challenge to the RRAS provided the […]
Official Misconduct Sentencing Downgrades (Part 3)
Justice Timpone continued in relevant part: We emphasize that Trinidad played a central role in the incident. The record shows he personally assaulted Jeter, lied in official reports to cover up his crimes, and similarly instructed Sutterlin to falsify reports. By finding him guilty on all counts, the jury implicitly rejected Trinidad’s contention that Jeter […]
Changes to Marijuana-Related Expungements (Part 8)
The amended 2C:52-2 section ends with the following: d. In the case of a State licensed physician or podiatrist convicted of an offense involving drugs or alcohol or pursuant to section 14 or 15 of P.L.1989, c.300 (C.2C:21-20 or 2C:21-4.1), the petitioner shall notify the State Board of Medical Examiners upon filing an application for […]
Kidnapping and Jury Verdict Sheets (Part 1)
On August 6, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Camden County case of State v. Keith Cuff. The principal issue under the kidnapping statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1, is whether omitting questions in the verdict sheet pertaining to the less serious kidnapping offense was plain error under the circumstances. Justice Patterson wrote for a 5-1 […]
Vehicular Homicide and Consecutive Sentences (Part 1)
On August 6, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of State v. William Liepe. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-5 was whether three consecutive sentences and an aggregate 32-year term for vehicular homicide and assault shocked the judicial conscience and required reversal. Justice Patterson wrote for a unanimous Court. She held in […]
English
Spanish