April 16, 2010

STATE v. GERMAINE A. HANDY (A-1838-07T4)

STATE v. GERMAINE A. HANDY (A-1838-07T4) 04-12-10


This appeal required us to determine whether evidence found
during the search incident to defendant's arrest should have
been suppressed because the dispatcher who incorrectly informed
the arresting officer that there was an outstanding arrest
warrant acted unreasonably under the circumstances, even though
the conduct of the arresting officer himself was reasonable.
The warrant at issue, which was ten years old at the time, had
the same birth month, but a different birth day and year. The
first name on the warrant was a variant spelling of defendant’s
first name. We concluded that suppression is required and,
consequently, reversed the conviction.

April 14, 2010

State of New Jersey v. J.G. (A-44-08)

State of New Jersey v. J.G. (A-44-08) 4-7-10

The cleric-penitent privilege applies when, under the
totality of the circumstances, an objectively
reasonable penitent would believe that a communication
was secret, that is, made in confidence to a cleric in
the cleric’s professional character or role as a
spiritual advisor.

New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. M.C. III In the Matter of M.C. IV and N.C. (A-96/97-08)

New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v.
M.C. III
In the Matter of M.C. IV and N.C. (A-96/97-08)
3-31-10

The trial court’s findings of abuse and neglect in
this case were supported by sufficient evidence,
defendant M.C. is barred by the doctrine of invited
error from contesting on appeal the admission of
documents that were admitted into evidence with his
express consent, and the trial court did not err in
relying on those documents.

State of New Jersey in the Interest of C.V. (A-6-09)

State of New Jersey in the Interest of C.V. (A-6-09) 3-22-10

The Supreme Court has no disagreement with the
Appellate Division’s unassailable determination that
C.V.’s placements in YCS and VisionQuest do not
satisfy the intended concept of detention in Rule
5:21-3(e) to qualify for mandatory day-to-day credit.
In addition, the Court holds that the Family Part
court retains the flexibility, in appropriate cases,
to grant a probationer who violated or otherwise
imperfectly performed the conditions of probation any
sentence the court could have initially imposed.