August 31, 2012

STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF J.J. A-2357-11T2


STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.
          A-2357-11T2
     This case required us to determine whether procedural due
process rights must be accorded to an adjudicated juvenile prior
to transfer from a juvenile facility operated by the Juvenile
Justice Commission (JJC) to an adult correctional facility
operated by the Department of Corrections (DOC) pursuant to the
provisions of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-175(e).  That statute permits such
transfers of a juvenile "who has reached the age of 16 during
confinement and whose continued presence in the juvenile
facility threatens the public safety, the safety of juvenile
offenders, or the ability of the commission to operate the
program in the manner intended."  The State takes the position
that no due process rights of any kind, including notice and an
opportunity to be heard, are required.  We disagreed and
reversed.
     We concluded that the rehabilitative purposes of the
juvenile justice system combined with the importance of the
decision in terms of the availability of rehabilitative services
to juveniles at issue require due process at least as extensive
as that required for prison discipline.  See Avant v. Clifford,
67 N.J. 496, 525 (1975).  At a minimum, before a juvenile can be
transferred to custody of the DOC, there must be written notice
of the proposed transfer and the supporting factual basis, an
impartial decision maker, an opportunity to be heard and to
present opposition, some form of representation, and written
findings of fact supporting a decision to proceed with the
transfer. 
08-28-12  

August 20, 2012

State v. Carlton Harris (A-111-10; 067929)


State v. Carlton Harris (A-111-10; 067929)
Items seized during a search conducted pursuant to a
warrant issued under the Prevention of Domestic
Violence Act can serve as the basis for a subsequent
criminal prosecution if their illegal nature is
immediately apparent. A firearm’s serial number is
visible simply by looking at the weapon. Recording
that number does not constitute a seizure, and entry
of that number into the NCIC system and review of the
results does not constitute a search. Whether the
officers could recognize immediately that the assault
rifle and large capacity magazines were illegal to
possess are factual determinations that must be
remanded to the trial court.
8-16-12 

State v. Norman Jackson (A-131/132-10; 067869)


 State v. Norman Jackson (A-131/132-10; 067869)
The trial court properly exercised its discretion when
it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial because
the prosecutor’s improper comments did not deprive
defendant of a fair trial. Defendant both transported
the victim a “substantial distance” and confined him
for a “substantial period” within the meaning of
N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b).
8-13-12

State v. J.D. (A-33-11; 064757)


 State v. J.D. (A-33-11; 064757)
Evidence proffered by defendant J.D. of the victim’s
prior sexual contact with other males consisted of
vague allegations that were inadmissible and not
constitutionally compelled, and the trial court
properly excluded it under the Rape Shield Law, which
protects the victim of sexual assault from unjustified
incursions into past conduct. 8-9-12

State v. Aurielo Ray Cagno (A-60-09; 064834)


 State v. Aurielo Ray Cagno (A-60-09; 064834)
The totality of the evidence permitted the jury to
find that the charged conspiracy continued into the
limitations period; the manner in which the
prosecution was permitted to establish the
continuation of the conspiracy did not violate
defendant’s right to confrontation; and the jury
instructions, as a whole, presented a fair, clear, and
accurate statement of the law.
8-8-12

State v. Alfonso Herrerra/State v. Nelson Gonzalez (A-121-10; 067308)


State v. Alfonso Herrerra/State v. Nelson Gonzalez
(A-121-10; 067308)
The exclusionary rule does not apply to a prosecution
for attempted murder and related offenses after a
possibly unlawful stop. An attenuation analysis is
unnecessary. Defendants are not entitled to racial
profiling discovery in seeking to suppress the drug
evidence or to challenge the Trooper’s credibility at
a new trial.
8-7-12 

Douglas Trautmann v. Chris Christie (A-16-11; 067705)


Douglas Trautmann v. Chris Christie (A-16-11; 067705)
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons
expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.
Chapter 37 is not preempted by federal law, does not
violate equal protection, and does not give rise to an
unconstitutional search and seizure.