December 30, 2009

State v. Peter O’Brien (A-89-08)

State v. Peter O’Brien (A-89-08)
12-29-09

Defendant was entitled to face a single adversary, the
State. He should not have had to bear the
consequences of a judge who appeared to disbelieve him
and his expert witness, revealed that disbelief to the
jury, and supported a witness adverse to him. Because
that conduct was clearly capable of producing an
unjust result, a new trial is in order. However, the
trial judge’s refusal to provide the jury with written
instructions did not constitute plain error and
therefore does not warrant reversal.

State v. Richard Chippero (A-50-08)

State v. Richard Chippero (A-50-08) 12-29-09

Although the evidence that justifies both an arrest
and the issuance of a search warrant must support a
finding of probable cause, the two probable cause
determinations are not identical. A finding of
probable cause as to one does not mean that probable
cause as to the other must follow, nor does the lack
of one compel a finding of the lack of proof for the
other. Accordingly, nothing in the Supreme Court’s
earlier holding in this case (Chippero I) should be
perceived as having compelled the suppression of the
evidence seized from defendant’s home.

December 16, 2009

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. STEVEN MUSTARO A-2582-08T

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. STEVEN MUSTARO
A-2582-08T4 12-14-09

We consider defendant's appeal from the denial of a post-
sentence motion to vacate his plea of guilty to driving while
intoxicated. The motion was predicated on a claim that the
State withheld exculpatory evidence, but by the time the motion
was filed the evidence — a videotape recorded by the camera in
the arresting officer's patrol car — had been destroyed through
reuse in accordance with the police department's procedures.
Applying State v. Parsons, 341 N.J. Super. 448 (App. Div. 2001)
and State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 107-09 (1991), we conclude
that defendant failed to establish that he would not have
admitted to driving if he had access to the videotape prior to
the plea, and we further conclude that the denial of his motion
was fully consistent with a proper application of the principles
set forth in State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009).

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. R.T. A-1131-06T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. R.T.
A-1131-06T4
12-16-09

The majority reversed defendant's conviction for multiple
counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and one count
of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child finding
defendant's right to a fair trial was prejudiced by the court
charging the jury with intoxication as possibly negating an
element of the crime, over defense counsel's objection. The
facts in evidence do not clearly indicate a rational basis for
the conclusion that defendant suffered such a "prostration of
faculties" as to render him incapable of forming the requisite
mental state to commit the crimes and the instruction interfered
with defense counsel's stated trial strategy.

The dissent found the trial court's discretion to give a
"road map" instruction on voluntary intoxication is not limited
to cases in which the charge is "clearly indicated" by the
evidence. Since the charge did not have the capacity to lead to
an unjust result here, the trial court did not commit reversible
error in giving the charge.

STATE VS. CHRISTOS E. TSETSEKAS A-1832-08T4

STATE VS. CHRISTOS E. TSETSEKAS
A-1832-08T4 12-14-09

We reversed the Law Division conviction and required
dismissal of the DWI charge due to violation of defendant's
right to a speedy trial. The extensive delay in adjudicating
this matter, caused solely by the State's repeated lapses in
preparation and the failure to secure its witnesses, infringed
upon defendant's due process rights.

J.S. VS. J.F. A-2552-08T2

J.S. VS. J.F.
A-2552-08T2 12-10-09

In this appeal, the court examined the factors relevant to
determining whether a dating relationship exists for purposes of
the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and concluded that a
plaintiff is not automatically disqualified from claiming a
dating relationship solely because defendant may have paid
plaintiff for her company.

STATE V. DANA RONE A-5850-07T4/A-6192-07T

STATE V. DANA RONE
A-5850-07T4/A-6192-07T4 (consolidated) 12-09-09

A decision by the Prosecutor's Office to waive forfeiture
of office under N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2 is not analogous to
prosecutorial decisions with respect to pretrial intervention
and is not entitled to enhanced deference or judicial review.
Waiver of forfeiture is a judicial function, not a prosecutorial
one.

December 7, 2009

State v. Quadir Whitaker (A-67-08) 12-7-09

State v. Quadir Whitaker (A-67-08) 12-7-09

Defendant could not be found guilty as an accomplice
of robbery and felony murder unless he shared the
principal’s intent to commit the theft before or at
the time the theft or attempted theft was committed.
Because the prosecutor improperly advised the jury
that it could convict defendant or robbery and felony
murder solely on the ground that he aided in the
robber’s escape, even if he did not participate or
assist in any way in the attempted theft or killing,
the Court is constrained to order a new trial.

December 2, 2009

STATE V. UGROVICS A-4906-08T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. JOEL M. UGROVICS
A-4906-08T4 12-02-09

This appeal concerns the admissibility of the results of an
Alcotest. By leave granted, the State appeals from the order of
the Law Division suppressing the results of the Alcotest because
the arresting officer, rather than the Alcotest operator, was
the person who observed defendant during the twenty minutes
prior to him taking the test. In reaching this conclusion, the
trial court relied on what it characterized as the "procedures"
mandated by the Supreme Court in State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54,
cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____, 129 S. Ct. 158, 172 L. Ed. 2d 41
(2008).

We reverse. We hold that the State is only required to
establish that the test subject did not ingest, regurgitate or
place anything in his or her mouth that may compromise the
reliability of the test results for a period of at least twenty
minutes prior to the administration of the Alcotest. The State
can meet this burden by calling any competent witness who can so
attest.

STATE V. WILLIAMS A-4530-07T4

STATE V. ROBERT WILLIAMS
A-4530-07T4 11-23-09

Flight from an unconstitutional investigatory stop that
could justify an arrest for obstruction does not automatically
justify admission of evidence revealed during that flight. For
such evidence to be admissible, there must be a "significant
attenuation" between the unconstitutional stop and seizure of
evidence.