June 30, 2010

FIGUEROA V. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ( A-3914-08T2)

FIGUEROA V. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ( A-3914-08T2) 06-28-10

In this appeal, appellant challenges the Department of
Corrections' decision finding him guilty of the prohibited act
of attempting to possess marijuana. In reversing, we determine
that the DOC's adjudication was not based on "substantial
evidence" in the record. In so doing, we reviewed the proofs
necessary to establish that the appellant committed the
prohibited act under the substantial evidence standard. We
construed the term "possession," not otherwise defined in the
definitional sections of the Administrative Code governing
inmate discipline, by applying the same construction as the term
is defined for the purpose of imposing criminal liability under
statutes charging individuals with possession of controlled
dangerous substances. State v. Pena, 178 N.J. 297, 305 (2004).

State v. Tysen R. Privott (A-7-09)

State v. Tysen R. Privott (A-7-09) 6-29-10


Based on the totality of the circumstances, there were
specific and particularized reasons for the officer to
conduct an investigatory stop and to frisk defendant
Tysen R. Privott. However, the officer’s conduct in
lifting defendant’s shirt exceeded the scope of a
reasonable intrusion that is permitted as part of a
Terry stop.

June 23, 2010

NJ LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION, ET AL v. STATE ( A-2839-08T1 )

NEW JERSEY LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v . STATE OF NEW JERSEY A-2839-08T1 06-21-10
The police and firefighters paid convention leave statute, N.J.S.A. 11A:6-10, is not unconstitutional as special legislation and does not violate the equal protection rights of members of employee organizations not affiliated with the unions designated in the statute.

June 16, 2010

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES V.D.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.M. (A-6020-08T4)



 NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES V.D.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF S.M.  A-6020-08T4 06-11-10 



 The issue presented on appeal is whether a parent's 

parental rights may be terminated when the New Jersey Division 

of Youth and Family Services (DYFS or Division) fails to prove 

all prongs of the best interests of the child standard, but 

nevertheless, the child may suffer serious psychological or 

emotional harm by severing the bond between the child and his or 

her foster parents.  We conclude that any harm the child may 

suffer from severing of that bond cannot, in and of itself, 

serve as a legally sufficient basis for termination of the 

parent's parental rights.  We hold that in such a case, DYFS 

must still prove by clear and convincing evidence that the 

parent's actions or inactions substantially contributed to the 

forming of that bond to where any harm caused to the child by 

severing the bond rests at the feet of the parent.  Because we 

found an absence of that proof, we reversed and remanded for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

June 9, 2010

State v. P.S. (A-21-09)

State v. P.S. (A-21-09)6-7-10
The Court declines to adopt a per se rule of exclusion
in a case in which a child sex abuse victim’s taped
statement is lost. The Court reaffirms the totality
of circumstances standard as the appropriate benchmark
for the admissibility of a tender years statement
under N.J.R.E. 830 (c) (27). In addition, the Court
reiterates its holdings in State v. Cook and State v.
Branch that simultaneous notes taken of a child sex
abuse victim’s interview should not be destroyed but
should be maintained throughout trial. The Court
declines to interpret its decisions in State v. G.S.
and State v. G.V. as providing an automatic basis for
the admission of other-crimes evidence to counter a
bias or vendetta defense. Rather, such other-crimes
evidence may only be admitted if it satisfies N.J.R.E.
404(b) and is not offered to prove the defendant’s
criminal

State v. Karlton L. Blackmon (A-18-09)

State v. Karlton L. Blackmon (A-18-09)6-9-10
Apart from those whose rights to speak at a sentencing
proceeding are established by the Constitution,
statutes, and Court Rules, the decision about who may
be heard remains within a sentencing court’s
discretion. Here, the error was not necessarily the
refusal to permit defendant’s step-father to speak,
but the failure to provide some expression of reasons
for that decision sufficient to permit appellate
review of whether the refusal was arbitrary or
capricious. The appropriate remedy is a remand to the
Law Division for an expression of reasons, not a
remand for resentencing.

STATE V. ROBERT DWAYNE GREEN (A-1892-07T4)

STATE V. ROBERT DWAYNE GREEN (A-1892-07T4) 06-07-10

In an earlier opinion we held that under Rule 3:28, every
defendant must be permitted to apply to the Pre-trial
Intervention Program (PTI), even if the defendant's chances of
acceptance are slim. We now clarify that our opinion did not
require PTI directors to do a "full work-up" on such
applications. Further, where a defendant is conditionally
ineligible for PTI, due to the type or degree of crime charged
or for other reasons, the PTI program may withhold evaluation of
the application until the prosecutor decides whether to join in
the application or to reject it. However, at some point, the
PTI director must evaluate the merits of the PTI application and
make a recommendation. We also note that the PTI forms and
procedures currently in use may be confusing to defendants and
suggest that the Criminal Practice Committee consider developing
uniform PTI application forms and procedures.

June 2, 2010

STATE v. ROY FRIEDMAN (A-0793-08T1)

STATE v. ROY FRIEDMAN (A-0793-08T1) 05-27-10

Mandatory periods of parole supervision on consecutive
sentences imposed under the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A.
2C:43-7.2, run concurrently upon release from incarceration.

State v. Pablo Carvajal (A-5-09)

State v. Pablo Carvajal (A-5-09) 6-2-10

The State satisfied its burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the duffel bag was
abandoned. Carvajal denied having any ownership or
possessory interest in the bag, and the police
attempted to identify other potential owners.
Carvajal therefore had no standing to challenge the
warrantless search of the bag.