Criminal Law

Understanding the NJ Supremes’ Decision in State v. Roberson Burney

Published on: September 6, 2023 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Summary

Cell tower evidence is frequently used in criminal cases.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a pivotal decision in the case of State v. Roberson Burney, a case dealing with complex issues of evidence admissibility and the potential for cumulative error during a trial. The Court ruled that both expert testimony regarding the defendant’s cell phone location based on a “rule of thumb” approximation and a first-time in-court identification of the defendant were inadmissible. The combination of these errors, the Court held, deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

In-Person vs. Video Remote Interpreting in Criminal Jury Trials

Published on: September 2, 2023 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Hudson County Interpreter In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court weighed in on a crucial issue of first impression: Must a criminal defendant be provided in-person interpreting services during a jury trial, or will video remote interpreting (VRI) suffice? The case of State v. Juracan-Juracan dives into this question, addressing a major point of contention within the legal community—especially given the significant adjustments courts have had to make in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Oscar R. Juracan-Juracan, a native speaker of the Kaqchikel language, was charged with multiple offenses related to alleged sexual assault. Juracan-Juracan requested a Kaqchikel interpreter for his trial, but because the interpreter resided on the West Coast and only spoke Kaqchikel and Spanish, a second interpreter was needed to translate between Spanish and English. The interpreter himself expressed concerns about the effectiveness of remote interpretation during the jury trial. Despite these concerns, the trial court denied the request for in-person interpreting, citing financial constraints among other reasons.

The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration. The Court made several crucial points:

Criminal Sentencing Considerations: State v. Cynthia Rivera

Published on: February 18, 2022 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Sentencing Courts must carefully consider all aggravating and mitigating factors.

Following a criminal defendant’s conviction or guilty plea, a judge decides the appropriate punishment at sentencing. A sentence may include incarceration, probation, fines, restitution, community service and participation in rehabilitation programs. However, there may be instances where a judge is able to enhance or reduce a sentence based upon factors specific to the defendant and the crime committed.

Factors that indicate higher culpability, and may result in a harsher sentence, are known as “aggravating” factors. Examples of aggravating factors are: previous convictions, attempts to conceal or dispose of evidence, use of a weapon, targeting vulnerable victims, etc.

Prior Convictions Unlawfully Preventing Defendants from Testifying at their own Trials

Published on: February 7, 2022 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Jersey-City-Criminal-Lawyer-Testifying-Witness--300x169 Witness “impeachment” refers to the process of attacking a witness’s credibility and the accuracy of their testimony at trial. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the New Jersey Rules of Evidence both allow the impeachment of a witness’s credibility by use of their prior convictions. However, when the witness is a defendant testifying in their own trial, there are specific rules that apply to the State’s use of their prior convictions.

Under the N.J.R.E. 609, the use of a prior conviction is limited “[i]f, on the date the trial begins, more than ten years have passed since the witness’s conviction for a crime or release from confinement for it, whichever is later.” The rule also states that when a conviction is ten years remote, it “is admissible only if the court determines that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect, with the proponent of the evidence having the burden of proof.”

On December 27, 2021 the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided in State v. Tywaun S. Hedgespeth that a lower court’s ruling, allowing the use of Defendant’s prior convictions for impeachment purposes was not harmless error.

Criminal Statute Partially Struck Down on First Amendment Grounds

Published on: December 16, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Jersey-City-Criminal-Lawyer-Natoli-Free-Speech--300x300 On December 9, 2021 the New Jersey Appellate Division published a decision which struck down a portion of New Jersey’s terroristic threats statute. In State v. Calvin Fair, the defendant was charged with and convicted of terroristic threats. On appeal, Defendant argued constitutional over breadth regarding N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a). Said section criminalizes threats of violence made with the purpose to terrorize another […] or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror. A three-judge panel agreed with the appellant’s arguments and struck down subsection (a). This resulted in a reversal of Defendant’s conviction and a remand for a new trial.

In Fair, the court analyzed different opinions throughout our nation’s state and federal courts. The court analyzed this case, in part, through the lens of the “true-threat” doctrine. The “true-threat” doctrine recognizes that our nation has a “profound national commitment to the debate on public issues which may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks […]” as well as “vituperative, abusive and inexact language.”

The court then focused on Virginia v. Black which held that Virginia’s criminal statute did “not run afoul of the First Amendment” because it did not just ban cross burning; it banned cross burning “with intent to intimidate.” The Court in Black held that a state can punish threatening speech or expression only when the speaker “means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Knock and Announce Warrants must be Scrupulously Honored by Law Enforcement

Published on: December 9, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

The United States Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, however, provides even greater protections against these unreasonable searches and seizures.

Evidence obtained in violation of these constitutional protections is usually inadmissible as per the exclusionary rule. The “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” is a legal metaphor used to describe such illegally gathered evidence and the inadmissibility of any additional evidence derived from it.

On November 3, 2021 the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey addressed the appropriate remedy for such unreasonable searches and seizures in State v. Caronna and State v. Collado.

Sentencing Beyond a Jury’s Verdict

Published on: October 11, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

jersey-city-criminal-sentencing-judge-1 In New Jersey, a criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial is guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the State Constitution. The principles of fairness and justice are encompassed in the roles assigned to the judge and the jury. The jury, otherwise known as the “finder of fact,” is tasked with determining what happened in a specific case and how those facts are relevant to the legal proceeding. The judge, otherwise known as the “trier of law”, is tasked with making legal rulings and ensuring that legal proceedings adhere to specific guidelines.

However, there are instances in which courtroom actors confuse the role they must play.

In State v. Melvin and State v. Padden-Battle , the Defendants were sentenced by the same judge who overlooked a jury’s acquittal and made decisions based on their own “fact-finding”.

New Jersey Court Allows Law Enforcement Identification of Suspect on Video

Published on: September 21, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

In New Jersey, the rules of evidence indicate that lay opinion testimony, which is non-expert witness testimony, is admissible when two conditions are met. First, the witness’s testimony must be rationally based on their perception. Secondly, the testimony must assist in understanding the witness’s testimony or determining a fact in issue.

However, assessing the admissibility and helpfulness of lay opinion testimony may present challenges when the potential for undue prejudice surfaces.

In State v. Sanchez , the Defendant filed a pretrial motion to exclude the lay opinion testimony of his parole officer who had identified him as a suspect in connection with a homicide and robbery investigation.

Supreme Court Ruling Has Sweeping Implications for Car Stops

Published on: September 13, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

Over the years, thousands of motorists have been stopped for having their license plate partially blocked. Often times, the stops are pretextual in that law enforcement’s real interest in the vehicle and its occupants is the desire to conduct a criminal investigation. In State v. Roman Rosado and State v. Darius Carter, two individuals that had been pulled over in a pre-textual manner challenged the statute on constitutional grounds. Rosado and Carter prevailed in their challenges.

The Supreme court ruled that N.J.S.A. 39:3-33 should be read narrowly and afford individuals whose license plates are partially blocked but otherwise legible the benefit of the doubt. More specifically, the court stated that, “if a frame conceals or obscures a marking in a way that it cannot be reasonably identified or discerned, the driver would be in violation of the law.” Conversely, if a phrase like “Garden State” is partly covered but still recognizable, there would be not violation.

This decision is immensely important for individuals who are pulled over in a pre textual manner only to have a subsequent investigation lead to a car search and the recovery of alleged criminal contraband.

Statutory Requirements for Compassionate Release in New Jersey

Published on: September 10, 2021 | by Stephen J. Natoli

A petition for compassionate release is typically granted to inmates who suffer from a terminal illness or profound incapacity that renders them physically incapable of committing a crime in the future.

In New Jersey, there are specific requirements that must be met prior to a court’s consideration for compassionate release. First, an inmate must present a Certificate of Eligibility from the Corrections Department indicating that two department-designated physicians have determined that the inmate suffers from a terminal condition or permanent physical incapacity that did not exist at the time of sentencing.

After such a certificate is presented, the court may grant compassionate release but only if the court has found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the inmate is physically incapable of committing future crimes and that they pose no threat to public safety.