The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in three more cases. Two of them are criminal matters, and the third arises out of a criminal case while presenting a civil issue.
In State v. Wint, the question presented for the Court, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Among other issues, did defendant’s invocation of his Miranda rights when first arrested preclude law enforcement from questioning defendant while he was still incarcerated six months later?” In an unpublished opinion, a three-judge Appellate Division panel found the record “incomplete and inconclusive” on aspects of this question, and remanded the matter for further proceedings on that issue.
State in the Interest of D.M.presents this issue: “Can this fourteen-year-old juvenile be adjudicated for third-degree endangering the welfare of an eleven-year-old child where there are no findings of coercion or penetration?” The Appellate Division issued a reported opinion, 451 N.J. Super. 415 (App. Div. 2017), which concluded that proof of penetration or coercion was required to sustain an adjudication of delinquency in these circumstances. In both this case and Wint, discussed above, the Court permitted supplemental briefing, which is to conclude, in both cases, by April 2, 2018.
Finally, in Kaminskas v. State of New Jersey, the question presented is “Were these Union County police officers entitled to a defense by the Attorney General for their conduct while performing a polygraph for the Union County Prosecutor?” The Appellate Division held in an unpublished opinion that the Attorney General rightly declined to provide a defense for the officers, based on plain statutory language, which the panel ruled places the burden of defending the officers on the governing body of the County, not the State.