Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification to decide “whether the testimony of an officer who is a certified Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is admissible at trial and, if so, under what circumstances.” At the heart of the case was whether there was a reliable scientific basis for a twelve-step protocol that is used to determine (1) whether a person was impaired, and (2) whether that impairment was likely caused by ingesting one or more drugs. For decades, issues like this in criminal cases were analyzed under the test outlined in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). That standard turned on whether the subject of expert testimony was “generally accepted” in the relevant scientific community. The New Jersey Court moved away from the Frye test over time. In civil cases, New Jersey shifted toward an approach that focused directly on reliability by evaluating the methodology and reasoning underlying proposed expert testimony. After an extensive evidentiary hearing before a Special Master, the Court asked the parties and amici to submit their views on whether to depart from Frye and adopt the principles of Daubert in criminal cases. After review, the Court concluded Daubert offered a superior approach to evaluate the reliability of expert testimony. This case was remanded back to the Special Master to apply the standard announced here to the DRE evidence in the first instance. View "New Jersey v. Olenowski" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, the issue presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's consideration was whether people such as defendants Richard Gomes and Moataz Sheira, who received conditional discharges for marijuana offenses before the 2021 adoption of the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (CREAMMA), were statutorily ineligible for admission into the pretrial intervention (PTI) program for new offenses. Both defendants received a previous conditional discharge stemming from a possessory marijuana offense that was no longer unlawful in New Jersey after CREAMMA. They were both charged with new offenses and applied for admission into PTI. A trial court concluded Sheira was statutorily ineligible for PTI because of his previous conditional discharge for marijuana possession, but a different trial court reached the contrary conclusion as to Gomes. Applying the “one diversion only” general limitation of the PTI statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(g)(1), and the terms of expungement statutes enacted before CREAMMA, the Appellate Division held that the defendants here were statutorily barred from PTI eligibility. The Supreme Court concluded persons who had pre-CREAMMA convictions for those marijuana offenses were no longer categorically precluded from future admission into PTI. Instead, prosecutors and reviewing courts must consider the merits of their PTI applications, without regard to the existence or circumstances of the earlier marijuana-related conditional discharges. "The holding harmonizes CREAMMA and its manifest legislative intent with the pre-existing general language of the PTI and expungement statutes, including the Legislature’s command in CREAMMA to apply its reforms to 'any case' that arose before its enactment." View "New Jersey v. Gomes" on Justia Law

Defendant Terrell Chambers was indicted and charged with second- degree sexual assault following a victim’s allegation that he performed non-consensual oral sex upon her several times over the course of a night when they drank alcohol at a gathering with friends and family. Defendant and several witnesses spoke about the victim’s alleged pre-incident mental illness. Defendant stated that the victim “was in the psychiatric home before, she went crazy before,” implying that she suffered from an illness that impaired her ability to recount the incident, or at a minimum, that she imagined or fabricated the incident. Defense counsel moved to compel the State to obtain and produce the victim’s pre-incident mental health records. Alternatively, counsel requested that the State make such records available for an in camera inspection. The State opposed the motion and argued it was not in possession, custody, or control of the records, and that it was without knowledge of their existence. The judge granted defendant’s motion and ordered the State to obtain and produce, for an in camera inspection, the victim’s mental health records -- extending six months before the incident and six months after the incident. The judge accepted defense counsel’s argument that “[t]he possibility of mistaken perception or recollection of an incident presents a legitimate need for the information which outweighs any possible prejudice.” The victim had no notice of the motion and therefore had no opportunity to be heard. The Appellate Division denied the State’s emergent motion seeking leave to appeal and a stay, noting that the State could renew its motion after the judge “issues an order regarding the use of the victim’s psychiatric records” following the in camera inspection. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that a heightened discovery standard governed a defendant’s motion for pre-incident mental health records from a sexual assault victim. The Court established the standard applicable to a formally filed motion and also outlined a less formal process through which defendants could make requests for discovery of the pre-incident mental health records of an alleged sexual assault victim by letter to the prosecutor’s office. So that the new procedural and analytical framework could be applied in this case, the Court vacated the orders appealed here and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "New Jersey v. Chambers" on Justia Law

In September 2013, defendant Deje Coviello was found unconscious in the driver’s seat of a parked car with the engine running and with several open containers of alcoholic beverages on the passenger seat. She was arrested and pled guilty to disorderly conduct and driving while intoxicated (DWI). On the disorderly conduct count, a Criminal Part judge sentenced defendant to one year of probation, a suspended eight-day jail term, and a monetary penalty. For the DWI conviction, her second, defendant she was sentenced to a two-year period of driver’s license forfeiture and, among other things, a two-year period of breath alcohol IID installation to commence after completion of the license forfeiture. Defendant never installed an IID. Defendant maintained she did not do so because she could not afford to buy or lease a car and had no access to drive another person’s vehicle. Defendant sought credit on her sentence: she fulfilled her entire sentence except for the IID requirement. The Criminal Part judge denied her motion, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant’s application for relief from the IID requirement and that the MVC was the appropriate forum in which to seek that sentencing relief. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that defendant’s requested modification of the IID requirement was not “a sentencing issue,” but rather an “administrative” matter for the MVC. The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed: the sentencing court, and not the MVC, had the appropriate jurisdiction over defendant’s motion for sentencing credit concerning the IID requirement. View "New Jersey v. Coviello" on Justia Law

A.M. fatally shot her husband in May 2010 and was convicted of first-degree murder and a weapons offense. In March 2021, following diagnoses of end-stage multiple sclerosis by two physicians, the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections issued a Certificate of Eligibility for Compassionate Release for A.M. A.M. filed a petition with the court, which the State opposed. The State advised the court that A.M.’s children intended to testify against her release at a hearing, as did the victim’s mother. The trial court denied A.M.’s petition for release. The court found that A.M.’s remaining period of parole ineligibility did not bar compassionate release under the Compassionate Release Act (CRA); that A.M. had established by clear and convincing evidence that she had a “permanent physical incapacity” within the meaning of the Act; and that conditions of release “likely could be established” to assure that she “would not pose a risk to public safety.” The trial court, however, concluded that compassionate release was not mandatory when those conditions were met. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that once those factors are met, a trial court has no discretion to deny relief. In 1993, Eddie Oliver, now Al-Damany Kamu, shot and killed a detective in a courthouse to prevent him from testyfying in a criminal case. Defendant shot and wounded two other officers, attempted to kill a third official, and planned to kill the judge, He was convicted of first-degree murder and three counts of attempted murder. The Department of Corrections issued a Certificate of Eligibility for Compassionate Release for Kamau in November 2021. The State and the victims opposed release. Based on the text of the new statute and its legislative history, the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded the Compassionate Release Act afforded judges discretion to deny relief, in exceptional circumstances, even if the law’s medical and public safety conditions are satisfied. In individual cases, when the medical and public safety factors are met, courts can assess whether extraordinary aggravating factors exist that justify the denial of compassionate release. Absent any such circumstances, petitions for relief should be granted. The Court found the record in A.M.'s case did not present extraordinary aggravating circumstances. The Court therefore modified and affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment to release A.M. The appeal in Oliver/Kamu involved the kind of extraordinary aggravating circumstances that justified denying relief. The Court modified and affirmed the trial court's judgment denying defendant's petition for release. View "New Jersey v. A.M." on Justia Law

In January 2013, defendant Timothy Canfield shot and killed K.P., his sister-in-law’s former boyfriend. Defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense. He testified that K.P., who was HIV-positive, came towards him during their argument while holding an object that defendant believed to be a hypodermic syringe. Defendant was charged with first-degree murder. At the charge conference, defendant objected to giving any instruction on lesser-included offenses, but the trial court charged the jury on aggravated and reckless manslaughter. Defendant did not request an instruction on passion/provocation manslaughter, and the court did not instruct the jury, sua sponte, on that lesser-included offense. The jury acquitted defendant of murder but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of aggravated manslaughter, among other offenses. The Appellate Division held that it was not plain error for the trial court not to give the passion/provocation manslaughter instruction because even accepting defendant’s version of the fatal confrontation, that instruction was not clearly indicated. The Appellate Division recommended a new procedural rule: “when, in a murder prosecution, the trial court determines to instruct the jury on self-defense at the charge conference . . . , the court should also consider and make specific findings on the record as to whether to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of passion/provocation manslaughter, regardless of whether either party has requested that instruction.” The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Susswein’s published opinion. The Court did not believe the Appellate Division’s proposed procedural rule was necessary. View "New Jersey v. Canfield" on Justia Law

Sometime after 1:00 a.m. on November 2, 2017, New Jersey State Police officers were deployed to arrest Julian Bell on a four-month-old failure to appear warrant. When the officers arrived at Bell’s home, he was standing outside with defendant Steven Bookman. Bell and Bookman fled into a row house next door to Bell’s residence, and officers pursued Bookman to a second-floor bedroom. After an officer informed Bookman he did not have legal grounds to detain him, Bookman voluntarily told the officer he had a revolver inside his jacket pocket. The officer retrieved the handgun and arrested Bookman. Following his indictment for weapons offenses, Bookman moved to suppress the handgun based on the warrantless entry into the row house. The trial court denied the motion, finding officers were permitted to enter the residence without a warrant under the hot pursuit doctrine. The New Jersey Supreme Court determined that under the totality of the circumstances reviewed here, the State Police detectives who entered the neighboring residence without a warrant did not have grounds to invoke the hot pursuit doctrine. The warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. Although the Court was “disturbed” by the manner of execution of this warrant, it declined to adopt a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to the execution of all Automated Traffic System arrest warrants. View "New Jersey v. Bookman" on Justia Law

Defendant A.L.A. was the legal guardian of her four grandchildren, who ranged in age from three to seventeen years old. In August 2016, the oldest grandchild reported that defendant physically abused them. After an investigation, the New Jersey Division of Child Protection & Permanency initiated an emergency removal of all four grandchildren. Defendant was tried for multiple counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The parties agreed that the court would instruct the jury on second-degree endangering, and what the parties termed a lesser included disorderly persons offense of simple assault. The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court’s review centered on whether the jury could have understood the affirmative defense of reasonable corporal punishment applied to both the child endangerment charge and the simple assault chard, where the reasonable corporal punishment instruction was provided only in the instructions for the child endangerment charge. The Supreme Court determined after review that the jury could not have understood the language in the instruction applied to both charges. Therefore, the Supreme Court held the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, in the context of the simple assault charge, that reasonable corporal punishment was not prohibited. Because that error in instructions could have led the jury to an unjust result, the conviction was vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "New Jersey v. A.L.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner F.E.D., seventy-three years old, was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and would not be eligible for parole until 2040. In February 2021, the Managing Physician of the New Jersey Department of Corrections submitted to the Commissioner of Corrections a Request for Compassionate Release on behalf of F.E.D. Based on the diagnoses provided by the attesting physicians, the Managing Physician found that F.E.D. “meets the medical conditions established” by N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e(d)(1), the Commissioner issued a Certificate of Eligibility for Compassionate Release. A trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. With regard to whether F.E.D. suffered from a “permanent physical incapacity” as defined in N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e(1), the trial court relied on the list of “activities of daily living” enumerated in the administration of New Jersey’s Medicaid program, which the court identified to be bathing, dressing, toileting, locomotion, transfers, eating and bed mobility. Applying that standard to the medical diagnoses presented in F.E.D.’s petition for compassionate release, the trial court observed that the attesting physicians had found a diminished ability in instrumental activities of daily living but not an inability to perform activities of basic daily living. The court accordingly found that F.E.D. had not presented clear and convincing evidence that he suffered from a “permanent physical incapacity” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e(d)(1). The Appellate Division found that the Certificate of Eligibility for compassionate release that the Department issued to F.E.D. was invalid based on its view that the Compassionate Release Statute applied only to inmates whose medical conditions rendered them unable to perform any of the activities of basic daily living, and to be inapplicable to any inmate who could conduct one or more of those activities. The New Jersey Supreme Court found that the Compassionate Release Statute did not require that an inmate prove that he is unable to perform any activity of basic daily living in order to establish a “permanent physical incapacity” under N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e(l). Rather, the statute required clear and convincing evidence that the inmate’s condition rendered him permanently unable to perform two or more activities of basic daily living, necessitating twenty-four-hour care. Assessing F.E.D.’s proofs in accordance with the statutory standard, the Supreme Court found he did not present clear and convincing evidence that his medical condition gave rise to a permanent physical incapacity under N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51e(f)(1). View "New Jersey v. F.E.D." on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the New Jersey Supreme Court's review centered on whether reasonable and articulable suspicion existed when a police officer conducted an investigatory stop of defendant Nazier Goldsmith on a walkway adjacent to a vacant house. Two police officers were on patrol in Camden in what they believed to be a “high- crime area” known for shootings and drug dealing. Based on his training, 20 years of experience, and his belief that the vacant house was used for the sale of drugs and weapons, Officer Joseph Goonan found it suspicious that defendant was on the walkway next to the vacant house and believed defendant was engaged in drug dealing activity. So the officers approached defendant, blocked his path at the end of the walkway, and began questioning him, asking for his name and for an explanation of his presence on that walkway. Defendant was ultimately charged with weapons and drug offenses. Defendant moved to suppress the gun and drugs, arguing that both the stop and frisk were unlawful because they were not based on reasonable suspicion. The trial court granted the motion, finding the stop lawful but the frisk unlawful. Because the trial court held the frisk to be unlawful, all the seized evidence (the gun, ammunition, drugs, and money) was suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that based on the totality of the circumstances -- including defendant’s presence in a high-crime area and his behavior and body language -- the officer’s frisk of defendant was objectively reasonable. The Supreme Court found that the information the officers possessed at the time of the stop did not amount to specific and particularized suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity. Therefore, the officers did not have reasonable and articulable suspicion to initiate an investigatory detention of defendant. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and reinstated the trial court’s suppression order. View "New Jersey v. Goldsmith" on Justia Law