September 23, 2014

George C. Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board (A-94-11

George C. Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board 
(A-94-11; 069327) 

The retroactive application of the 2007 Sex Offender Monitoring Act to George Riley twenty-three years after he committed the sexual offense at issue and after he fully completed his criminal sentence violates the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitution. 

State v. Kirby Lenihan (A-45-12; 071497)

9-18-14 State v. Kirby Lenihan (A-45-12; 071497) 
Under the circumstances presented in this case, a violation of the Seat Belt Law, clearly “intended to protect the public health and safety,” is a predicate offense that can support a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-18b. 

Disbarment- In the Matter of Peter J. Cammarano, III, An Attorney at Law (D-46-13; 073714)

In the Matter of Peter J. Cammarano, III, An Attorney at Law (D-46-13; 073714) 

Respondent’s unethical conduct, consisting of offering favored treatment to a private developer in exchange for money, betrays a solemn public trust and undermines public confidence in honest government, thereby warranting his disbarment. 

State v. Bruno Gibson (A-11-13) (072257)

State v. Bruno Gibson (A-11-13) (072257) 

Due to the fundamental differences between a pre-trial motion to suppress and a trial on the merits, the best1practice is to conduct two separate proceedings. However, the motion record may be incorporated into the trial record if both parties consent and counsel are given wide latitude in cross-examination. Where the evidence from a pre-trial hearing is improperly admitted at the trial on the merits, the correct remedy is remand for a new trial.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUNE GORTHY A-2678-09T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUNE GORTHY 
A-2678-09T2 
We affirm a trial judge's refusal to allow a defendant who was otherwise competent to stand trial to waive the insanity defense. As called for in State v. Handy, 215 N.J. 334 (2013), the judge engaged in a thorough and searching inquiry of the defendant, her psychiatric history, and the circumstances of the offense. His conclusion was amply supported by the record. Despite defendant's competence to stand trial and to raise substantive defenses to other crimes simultaneously tried, she was unable to make a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the insanity defense on the charge of stalking.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SALADIN THOMPSON A-1375-11T4/A-2154-11T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SALADIN THOMPSON 
A-1375-11T4/A-2154-11T4 (CONSOLIDATED) 

In this appeal, we set aside defendant's convictions for murder and weapons offenses, after our earlier remand to the trial court to conduct a hearing pursuant to State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986). Based upon our review of the remand record, we determined that we were unable to determine whether the State's exercise of seven of its nine peremptory challenges to excuse African-Americans was the product of impermissible discrimination as opposed to situation-specific bias, because the court failed to engage in the requisite "third-step" analysis established in Gilmore. 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARK C. SHEPPARD A-1423-11T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARK C. SHEPPARD 
A-1423-11T4/ A-0195-12T4(CONSOLIDATED) 
In this appeal, we consider State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) in the context of when other bad acts evidence do not occur contemporaneously with the crime charged and therefore requires "intrinsic"/"non-intrinsic" analysis. A jury found defendant guilty of second-degree aggravated assault and four other offenses, arising out of the stabbing of a Hispanic man. Defendant asserts the trial judge erred by failing to 
suppress, appropriately sanitize, or properly instruct the  jury on the evidence concerning an encounter with the police that occurred three months after the stabbing, in which defendant revealed himself as a loud, aggressive, and foul-mouthed drunk, who made a single anti-Hispanic comment referencing the victim. We reverse and remand for a new trial, concluding the trial court mistakenly exercised its discretion when it admitted the bulk of the evidence concerning the prior encounter, without appropriate "sanitization" or jury instructions. In a companion case, we affirm the trial court's denial of a suppression motion and resulting conviction of weapons offenses. 

September 15, 2014

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. JAMES W. FRENCH A-4963-13T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. JAMES W. FRENCH 
A-4963-13T1 

A sentence of 90 days in jail followed by 90 days in an inpatient drug rehabilitation program does not satisfy the "fixed minimum sentence of not less than 180 days during which the defendant shall not be eligible for parole" mandated for the fourth-degree crime of operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension for multiple convictions of driving while intoxicated. N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b). 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. WILLIAM SMULLEN A-0722-12T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. WILLIAM SMULLEN 
A-0722-12T4 
   Defendant pled guilty in 2003 to two counts of second degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(4), based on having consensual sexual intercourse on two separate occasions with a fifteen-year-old girl. In this appeal from the denial of a PCR petition, we hold defendant established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's failure to inform him, before he pled guilty, of the nature and scope of the community supervision for life restrictions he would face in his home state of New York, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. We remand the PCR judge to conduct an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Rule 3:22-10(b), to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, defendant would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. State v. Nunez-Valdez, 200 N.J. 129, 138 (2009). 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ARMANDO CARREON A-5501-12T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ARMANDO CARREON 
A-5501-12T1 
     This appeal requires us to consider whether a never-licensed driver may be fined and sentenced to a custodial term under the penalty provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:3-10. Because we agree that the statute allows a fine or imprisonment but not both, even for drivers, who, like defendant, have never been licensed, we reverse defendant's sentence and remand to the Law Division for resentencing. 

State v. Santino J. Micelli, a/k/a Santino J. Miceli, a/k/a Santino Miceli (A-1-12

State v. Santino J. Micelli, a/k/a Santino J. Miceli, a/k/a Santino Miceli (A-1-12; 070453) The reliability of the identifications should have been assessed at a Wade hearing before the trial court.

State v. Shaffona Morgan (A-119-11

State v. Shaffona Morgan (A-119-11; 069967) 
Both ex parte communications between the trial judge and jury were improper and the trial court erred in permitting the jurors to take written instructions home for the weekend. Despite those errors, the record affirmatively shows that the contacts and the decision to permit the jury to take home written instructions did not prejudice defendant and had no tendency to influence the verdict.