The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in four new cases. Two of them are criminal matters. The other two involve eminent domain issues. One of the criminal appeals is before the Court on leave to appeal, the second grant of leave to appeal in the current Term. The Court granted certification in the other three matters....
The Supreme Court announced that it has granted leave to appeal in State v. Caneiro, a quadruple homicide case. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's office, is "Under the circumstances presented, where defendant's house was on fire, was the warrantless seizure of evidence from the garage justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement?"...
As has been widely reported in the legal and popular press, after a series of procedural maneuvers to install Alina Habba as United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, defendants in two criminal cases (United States v. Giraud and United States v. Pina) sought to disqualify her and to dismiss the indictments against them. On August 21, a specially assigned judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled that Habba did not properly hold that office but declined to dismiss the indictments....
The 2024-25 Term ends on August 29. In this penultimate week of the Term, there were no Supreme Court opinions. There were, however, two published decisions from the Appellate Division, one a civil case involving "the latest development in the ongoing controversy surrounding black bear hunting in New Jersey" and the other a criminal appeal centering on constitutional rights associated with a cellphone passcode. Here are summaries of those opinions:...
This week saw one case decided by the Supreme Court and two published opinions of the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court case, decided by a 6-1 vote, presented an ex post facto issue arising out of amendments to the statute governing parole. The two Appellate Division decisions entailed more "core" criminal law issues. Here are summaries of those cases:...
State v. Taylor, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c), a part of the Graves Act, makes the use or possession of a firearm during the commission, attempted commission, or flight from the commission of certain designated offenses a sentencing factor that triggers the imposition of a mandatory term of imprisonment. A later-added section of the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.2, creates an "escape valve," under which a prosecutor may seek from the court a waiver of the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence where the prosecutor believes that such a sentence would not serve the interest of justice....
State v. Cromedy, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). The Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c), prescribes a minimum term of incarceration for firearm-related offenses under certain subsections of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5, as well as a mandatory period of parole ineligibility. In this case, the issue was whether a weapons offense conviction of violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(j) is covered by the Graves Act. The Law Division and the Appellate Division each held that it was. The Supreme Court reversed in a unanimous opinion by Justice Noriega....
The Supreme Court Clarifies New Jersey's Automobile Exception to the Requirement of a Search Warrant
State v. Fenimore, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions protect the people against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and prohibit the issuance of search warrants without "probable cause." Both federal and New Jersey law, however, recognize an "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement. But New Jersey's automobile exception is narrower than the federal exception, as the Supreme Court stated in State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409 (2015). Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the Appellate Division in this case had interpreted Witt too broadly in reversing a Law Division decision to exclude evidence from a warrantless search. The Supreme Court reversed and excluded the evidence....
State v. Kelly, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Judge Gummer wrote the panel's opinion in this case. The panel reversed defendant's conviction on weapons and criminal restraint charges, based on a set of facts remarkably similar to those in State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80 (2004)....
State v. Byrd, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Justice Noriega authored the Court's unanimous opinion in this case today. During the murder trial that led to this appeal, allegations of misconduct by a certain juror, No. 8, surfaced. That juror allegedly conducted outside research, discussed the case with third parties, texted one of the defendants, and expressed an intent to find defendants guilty. The trial judge questioned Juror No. 8, but on appeal from defendants' convictions, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's inquiry "was insufficiently tailored to the allegations against the juror, failed to probe into the heart of the allegations, and was therefore inadequate." The Court remanded the case for further proceedings....
