August 27, 2009

08-25-09 STATE V. VENEY, JR. A-2852-06T4

08-25-09 STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. LOUIS E. VENEY, JR.
A-2852-06T4

The question presented on direct appeal is whether a
defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his
attorney failed to seek dismissal of the charge of third-degree
unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b, the State
having previously tried defendant to conclusion on another
charge, arising from the same core set of facts giving rise to
the charge of unlawful possession of a weapon. We concluded
that the State was barred from prosecuting the charge of
unlawful possession of a weapon pursuant to the mandatory
joinder rule, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8b and Rule 3:15-1(b). In the
opinion we discussed the various rules of procedure and
principles of law governing not only mandatory joinder, but also
double jeopardy, severance and dismissals.
We also concluded that defendant was denied the effective
assistance of counsel; and reversed the conviction and dismissed
the indictment.

Chase Smith assistant editor

August 18, 2009

08-13-09 STATE IN THE INTEREST OF Z.W. A-4759-07T4

08-13-09 STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF Z.W.
A-4759-07T4

Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6), DYFS disclosed a
confidential report to the prosecutor in a pending juvenile
matter. Defense counsel sought discovery of the report; the
prosecutor requested the judge to conduct a preliminary in
camera review. The judge denied the request and ordered the
prosecutor to review the report to determine whether it should
be disclosed, in whole or in part, to defense counsel and, if
so, to disclose it; the judge also ordered the prosecutor to
obtain an additional DYFS report, and to review it and disclose
to defense counsel any part of the report the prosecutor deemed
to be discoverable.
We reversed and remanded for in camera review of both
reports prior to disclosure to defense counsel. We held that
N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a does not authorize the release of
confidential DYFS reports to third parties not identified as
authorized recipients of such reports in N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)
without an in camera review to determine if such disclosure is
essential to the resolution of any issue before the court.
(Approved for Publication Date).

08-12-09 STATE IN THE INTEREST OF A.S. A-5747-07T4

We suppress the confession of the fourteen-year-old
adoptive daughter of F.D., who committed an act of fellatio upon
F.D.'s four-year-old grandson, because in incorrectly explaining
the daughter's Miranda rights and in participating in her
interrogation, F.D. placed the interests of her grandson ahead
of the interests of her daughter. We suggest that in
circumstances in which a parent has a conflict of interest
arising from a familial relationship to both the alleged
juvenile perpetrator and victim, an attorney represent the
juvenile during any custodial interrogation.

Chase Smith assistant editor

08-05-09 STATE v. ADAMES A-1493-07T2

Defendant Wendis Adames appealed his conviction for the
first-degree murder of his father. The issue at trial was not
whether Adames killed his father, but whether he was legally
responsible for doing so based upon his alleged mental illness.
See N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1. For that reason, the outcome of the trial
turned largely on the jury's evaluation of expert testimony
concerning his mental health at the time of the homicide. We
concluded that the prosecutor improperly commented on Adames's
demeanor in the courtroom during the cross-examination of one of
his mental-health expert witnesses and again during summation.
See State v. Rivera, 253 N.J. Super. 598, 604-05 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 130 N.J. 12 (1992). Some of her comments
involved an incident that took place outside of the presence of
the jury and, therefore, constituted improper factual assertions
by the prosecutor. See State v. Farrell, 61 N.

Chase Smith assistant editor

08-03-09 STATE v. WASHINGTON A-2533-07T4

In this case, defendant was charged with the unlawful
taking of the monies of an elderly person who resided in
defendant's home. We held that the trial court correctly
instructed the jury as to the manner in which it could aggregate
the alleged thefts for purposes of determining the grade of the
offense pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2b(4). We also held that the
trial court correctly instructed the jury on three different
types of theft even though the indictment only charged theft by
unlawful taking because, under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2a, a defendant
may be found guilty if his or her conduct constitutes

Chase Smith assistant editor

08-03-09 STATE V. BERTRAND A-2378-07T4

Defendant's conviction for refusing to provide breath
samples, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2, is affirmed. The parking garage of
a high-rise condominium that held 354 cars, and the use of which
was restricted to residents of that building, constituted a
"quasi=public area" for purposes of the statute.

Chase Smith assistant editor

07-31-09 STATE V. BARROW A-4334-07T4

A police officer stopping a motor vehicle for violating
N.J.S.A. 39:3-74 must provide articulable facts showing that he
or she reasonably believed that an object hanging from a
rearview mirror obstructed the driver's view.

Chase Smith assistant editor

07-30-09 STATE V. SMITH A-5217-07T4

Defendant's conviction on trial de novo for violating
N.J.S.A. 39:4-125 is affirmed because he turned his vehicle
"around so as to proceed in the opposite direction on a highway"
on which a "no U turn" sign was conspicuously posted. Defendant
does not have to perform a "u turn." The West Annotated version
of the statute contains an error. The "no U turn" sign need not
be on a "state" highway, and therefore whether or not the road
was a "state" highway was irrelevant, as there is a rebuttable
presumption the statute was properly posted. As defendant was
not entitled to assigned counsel, the fact he was improperly
assigned counsel in the Law Division does not require vacation
of the municipal conviction because he was not assigned counsel
there.

Chase Smith assistant editor

August 14, 2009

07-28-09 STATE V. MORAN A-3810-07T4

We reject the constitutional and repeal by implication
(though the subsequent creation of the motor vehicle point
system) challenges to N.J.S.A. 39:5-31, which authorizes,
without standards or limits, driver's license suspensions for
willful motor vehicle violations.

Chase Smith assistant editor

7-30-09 State v.Taccetta (A-13-08)

Defendant cannot demonstrate that he suffered prejudice. Even
if he had been offered a plea agreement, and
regardless of any deficient advice from his attorney about his
potential sentencing exposure following a trial, based on his
protestation of innocence at the PCR hearing, defendant could
not have given a truthful factual basis in entering a guilty
plea to the State’s purported plea offer. A trial court cannot
be complicit in a defendant’s plan to commit perjury, and a PCR
court cannot vacate a jury verdict following a fair trial on
the ground that defendant would have pled guilty if he had been
given the opportunity to lie under oath.

Chase Smith assistant editor

7-29-09 State in the Interest of P.M.P.

The filing of the complaint and the obtaining of a judicially
approved arrest warrant by the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office
was a critical stage in the proceedings, and pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-39B(1), P.M.P. had the right to counsel and could
not waive that right except in the presence of and after
consultation with his attorney counsel. Therefore, the trial
court properly granted P.M.P.’s motion to suppress his
statement.

Chase Smith assistant editor

7-28-09 State v. Winder (A-34-08)

In this first-degree murder case, the trial court properly
denied defendant’s request for a tailoring of the model jury
charge on insanity to explain to the jury that a criminally
insane person may be capable of comprehending that an act is
legally wrong while not understanding it to be morally wrong.

Chase Smith assistant editor