Appellate Division

New Jersey Supreme Court Tightens the “Reasonable Diligence” Standard for New Trial Motions: State v. Nirav Patel

Published on: June 9, 2026 | by Stephen J. Natoli

New-Evidence-300x300 The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in State v. Nirav Patel that delivers an important message to defendants and defense counsel about newly discovered evidence. The Court held that a defendant who possessed exculpatory documents before trial, knew or had reason to know they existed, and yet never searched for them during the four years between indictment and trial cannot satisfy the reasonable diligence requirement for a new trial. The Court reversed both the trial court and the Appellate Division, which had granted the defendant a new trial, and remanded the matter for sentencing. The decision clarifies how the reasonable diligence prong of the newly discovered evidence standard operates and how much deference appellate courts owe to a trial court’s findings on that question.

The underlying prosecution arose out of a failed restaurant venture in Hoboken. In May 2019, a State grand jury indicted Nirav Patel for second-degree theft by deception. The State alleged that he obtained $750,000 from a group of six investors who believed they were purchasing a 30 percent interest in a planned World of Beer franchise, when in reality Patel owned only a 5 percent interest in the entity that held the franchise rights. The investors’ money was deposited into an account belonging to his family’s business, Bhagu, Inc. A financial crimes investigator testified at trial that the funds were used to pay Patel’s personal expenses, including mortgage and car payments for a residence and a Porsche, to cover debts of the family’s restaurant, and to fund checks made payable directly to Patel. According to the investigator, none of the money ever reached the franchise entity or was used for the benefit of the Hoboken project. In April 2023, nearly four years after the indictment, a jury found Patel guilty.

Eight days after the verdict, Patel moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. At an evidentiary hearing, his sister testified that the family was shocked by the verdict and that she began combing through boxes of documents at their parents’ home, where Patel had lived full-time since 2019. After days of searching, she found eleven pages in the garage referencing Bhagu and World of Beer. Patel then searched his own email accounts using basic terms such as “World of Beer” and “Bhagu,” and within roughly an hour he located complete versions of the documents. Among them were two franchise agreements naming Bhagu, Inc. as the sole franchisee for the Hoboken location and a guaranty reflecting that Patel held a 30 percent interest in an entity called Tapmasters II. Patel argued the documents proved he had authority to sell shares to the investors. World of Beer’s chief development officer testified that he believed the Bhagu agreements were not legitimate and that a search of the company’s records turned up no trace of them. The trial court nonetheless granted a new trial, reasoning that because Patel was involved in many businesses, the evidence was buried among presumably thousands of documents and was not discoverable by reasonable diligence. The Appellate Division affirmed.

State v. DiNapoli: The New Jersey Supreme Court Clarifies Causation Defenses in Vehicular Homicide Cases

Published on: May 21, 2026 | by Stephen J. Natoli

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in State v. Thomas J. DiNapoli that carries significant implications for how vehicular homicide cases are litigated across the state. At its core, the Court held that a defendant charged with vehicular homicide has the right to present expert testimony challenging the State’s theory of causation under prong one of N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(c), even when that testimony does not directly rebut “but for” causation. The Court also held that no preliminary N.J.R.E. 104 hearing is required to determine the admissibility of such expert opinions. For criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors working in Hudson, Essex, Union, Passaic, and counties throughout New Jersey, the decision reshapes how causation defenses are built, disclosed, and presented at trial.

On the afternoon of June 4, 2019, Thomas DiNapoli was driving in Union Township when his vehicle crossed the double yellow lines and struck an oncoming car. The front-seat passenger was ninety-four years old and suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. She was transported to the hospital with rib and patella fractures and lung contusions. The following day, her family opted for palliative care given her overall condition, and she died later that afternoon. DiNapoli, who had taken his prescribed medication Clonazepam in excess of a normal therapeutic dosage before driving, was charged with second-degree vehicular homicide. The autopsy listed the cause of death as blunt impact injuries sustained in the collision.

To contest the State’s theory that his reckless driving caused the front-seat passenger’s death, DiNapoli proffered three experts who concluded that the injuries were not life-threatening and that she would have recovered from the accident had her family not elected palliative care. In their view, the actual cause of death was respiratory depression brought on by the narcotic medications administered as part of hospice treatment, not the trauma from the crash. The State moved to bar all three experts, and after a procedural history that included a mistrial, the Appellate Division sided with the State and remanded the matter for an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing to resolve what it saw as troubling inconsistencies among the defense experts’ reports. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and reversed.

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules on Persistent Offender Sentencing: What State v. Carlton Means for Criminal Practitioners

Published on: May 1, 2026 | by Stephen J. Natoli

ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-03_50_30-PM-300x300 The New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in State v. Jamel Carlton that has immediate and far-reaching consequences for how extended-term sentences are sought and challenged across the state. At its core, the Court held that a constitutional error occurred when a judge, rather than a jury, made the factual findings required to sentence Carlton as a persistent offender under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a). But the Court did not stop there. It went on to hold that such an error is subject to harmless error review, and that under the specific facts of Carlton’s case, the error was indeed harmless. For criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors working in Hudson, Essex, Union, Passaic, and counties throughout New Jersey, the decision raises important questions about pending cases, ongoing sentencing proceedings, and the long-term viability of the persistent offender statute as it currently reads.

The background of the case is straightforward. Jamel Carlton was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, burglary, and related offenses. At sentencing, the State moved to have him sentenced as a persistent offender based on two prior New York convictions such as a third-degree robbery from 2007 and a fourth-degree possession of stolen property from 2011. The trial judge, not a jury, made the factual findings establishing Carlton’s persistent offender status and imposed an aggregate forty-two-year term subject to the No Early Release Act. While Carlton’s appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), which held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury, not a judge, to determine whether a defendant’s prior offenses were committed on separate occasions when those findings increase sentencing exposure. Both the State and Carlton agreed that his sentence was unconstitutional under Erlinger.

The constitutional backdrop matters here, and the New Jersey Supreme Court traced it carefully. The line of cases from Apprendi v. New Jersey through Blakely v. Washington and into Erlinger stands for a consistent proposition: any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Erlinger extended that logic directly to the persistent-offender context, rejecting the government’s argument that the narrow “prior conviction” exception established in Almendarez-Torres allowed a judge to resolve the surrounding factual questions such as whether the prior offenses were committed on different occasions. The New Jersey Supreme Court made clear that Erlinger abrogated the Court’s own earlier holding in State v. Pierce, which had permitted judges to make exactly those findings.

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules That Cell Site Location Evidence Requires an Expert Witness

Published on: April 24, 2026 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Cell-Phone-Tower-Expert-300x300 On April 16, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in State v. Jule Hannah that carries significant consequences for how cell phone location evidence can be presented in criminal trials. The Court held that cell site location information, commonly known as CSLI, involves technical and specialized knowledge that is beyond the understanding of the average juror, and therefore must be introduced through a qualified expert witness. The decision affirms the Appellate Division’s reversal of Hannah’s first-degree murder conviction and orders a new trial, drawing a clear line that prosecutors and defense attorneys across New Jersey must now respect.

The case arose from the January 2017 death of Miguel Lopez, who was found shot to death in his car in Bridgeton after crashing into a tree. Investigators developed Hannah as a suspect based on surveillance footage, DNA from a cigar butt recovered from the passenger seat, and cell phone records. At trial, the State sought to use those records to place Hannah in Lopez’s car during the ride from Monroe Township to Bridgeton. Rather than calling a qualified expert, the State presented Detective Sergeant Leyman as a lay witness to testify about which cell towers Hannah’s phone connected to during the relevant time period. The trial court tried to thread the needle allowing Leyman to testify about tower locations while repeatedly instructing the jury that a cell phone’s connection to a tower does not establish where the phone was at any given moment. That tension, the Supreme Court concluded, was precisely the problem.

The Court’s analysis began with a foundational distinction in the rules of evidence between lay and expert testimony. Under New Jersey law, a lay witness can offer opinions based on common knowledge and observation. When a subject is so technical that the average juror cannot form a valid conclusion without guidance, however, expert testimony is required. CSLI, the Court explained, squarely falls into that category. Whether a phone connects to the nearest tower depends not just on proximity but on a constellation of variables such as tower height, antenna direction, terrain and topography, network load balancing, and the technical characteristics of the phone itself. A jury left to draw inferences from raw call records, without any expert framework to interpret them, risks attributing far more or far less weight to that data than the evidence actually warrants.

New Jersey Appellate Division Suppresses Evidence From Defective Warrant

Published on: March 19, 2026 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Defective-Warrant-300x300 Search warrant cases often turn on major constitutional questions, but sometimes they come down to something much simpler: whether the State got the basics right on the face of the application. In a published decision issued on March 5, 2026, State of New Jersey v. Carlene Harris and Norman A. Thomas 4th, the New Jersey Appellate Division made clear that courts will not rescue a defective warrant by rewriting it after the fact. In this case, the warrant certification listed the key investigative events with dates that made the information stale, and the State later argued those dates were merely typographical errors. The Appellate Division rejected that argument, holding that probable cause must be evaluated from the four corners of the application itself, not from explanations offered later once the defect is exposed.

The case arose out of a drug investigation in Lakewood. According to the certification submitted in support of the search warrants, officers met with a confidential informant during the week of January 29, 2022, and then conducted controlled buys during the weeks of February 19, 2022, and February 26, 2022. Based on those events, police sought warrants in March 2023 to search two apartments, a vehicle, and a person. But the problem was obvious: if the dates in the certification were taken at face value, the key investigative activity had taken place more than a year earlier, making the information stale for probable cause purposes.

The State argued that the year “2022” was simply a typographical error and that the events actually happened in 2023. It also tried to support that position with police reports submitted later and asked for the opportunity to prove the mistake at a hearing. The trial court rejected that approach, suppressed the evidence, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The panel held that the validity of the warrants had to be judged based on what was actually presented to the issuing judge, not on what the State later wished had been included.