Here, a unanimous Court reversed the opinion of the three-judge appellate panel for the reasons expressed by the one dissenting judge, Judge Espinosa. This is likely a source of pride for Judge Espinosa as she took a position contrary to the majority of her panel and her minority position was unanimously adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The per curiam opinion and Judge Espinosa’s related dissent read in relevant part as follows: The judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division is reversed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Espinosa’s dissenting opinion, reported at ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2017) (Espinosa, J.A.D., dissenting). Defendant’s guilty plea is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
The essential elements of an offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) are (1) there was a weapon, (2) defendant possessed the weapon knowingly, and (3) the defendant’s possession of the weapon was under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for a lawful use. Model Jury Charge (Criminal), “Unlawful Possession of a Weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5d” (2005).
During the course of his plea colloquy, defendant admitted he knowingly possessed a weapon. He admitted little else. In the first attempted plea colloquy, he stated, “I had a lawful purpose, like, I didn’t want to do anything unlawful. I just possessed it.”