The Supreme Court has granted review in five cases.  One of them is an appeal as of right, by virtue of a dissent in the Appellate Division.  That case is State v. Twiggs.  The question presented there, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “When addressing the statute of limitations in a criminal matter, is N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6’s tolling provision- which applies when ‘the actor’ is identified by means of DNA evidence- triggered where the DNA analyzed belongs to a third party, rather than the defendant?”  The Appellate Division’

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted leave to appeal in two criminal cases, each of which addresses the suppression of evidence.  In State v. Atwood, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office, is “Was the seized evidence properly suppressed based on defendant’s challenge to police conduct occurring prior to the issuance of the warrant?”

In State v. Zalcberg, the question presented is “In this DWI matter, is defendant entitled to the suppression of blood evidence obtained without a warrant?&

Ricci v. Ricci, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2017).  As Judge Lihotz observed in the opening sentence of her opinion for the Appellate Division in this case, Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J. 529 (1982), established the principle that “the privilege of parenthood carries with it the duty to assure a necessary education for children.”  That duty applies, however, only to children who are not emancipated.  “A determination of emancipation is a legal issue, imposed when the