NJ Appellate Law Blog – NJ Appellate Lawyer Bruce D. Greenberg blogs about Appeals and Appellate Law Practice

Criminal Statute of Limitations and the Effect of DNA Testing: The Supreme Court Will Speak

The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certification to review the Appellate Division's decision in State v. Thompson. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's...

Last Week

Late last week, the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division each issued two published opinions. Neither court has issued any published opinions this week (nor is either court slated to...

The Supreme Court Takes Two New Criminal Appeals and Agrees to Answer a Certified Question From the Third Circuit

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in three new cases. Two are criminal appeals and the third involves two questions certified by the Third Circuit. The Supreme...

Some Criminal Defendants Detained Pre-Trial Can Reopen Their Detention Hearings, the Supreme Court Says

In re Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees, 245 N.J. 218 (2021). This matter arose out of a motion filed by the Office of the Public Defender and the American...

Getting Current With the Appellate Division

The past few days have been especially busy ones in my practice. The Appellate Division has likewise been quite busy issuing published opinions as January turned to February. Here are...

Use in Summation of a Picture From "The Shining" Takes the Shine Off a Robbery Conviction

State v. Williams, ___ N.J. ___ (2021). In this case, defendant, accused of robbing a bank, was convicted of second degree robbery. That crime requires force or the threat of...

The Supreme Court Will Decide the Constitutional Validity of an Indictment Returned by a Virtual Grand Jury

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in State v. Vega-Larregui. Pursuant to Rule 2:12-1, the Court granted direct certification of a portion of defendant's motion to dismiss...

The Appellate Division Declines to Follow an Outmoded Errors and Appeals Decision About Age-Related Lay Opinion Testimony

State v. Gerena, 465 N.J. Super. 548 (App. Div. 2021). Defendant was convicted of fourth degree lewdness. A statutory grading element of that offense is that one or more of...

Mistrial In Murder Case Interrupted by COVID-19 Pandemic Was Not an Abuse of Discretion

State v. Smith, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2020). Perhaps fittingly, the final published Appellate Division of 2020, written by Judge Fasciale and issued today, centered on the COVID-19...

The Supreme Court Will Review the Exclusion of "Historical Context Testimony" in a Criminal Case

The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in State v. Moore. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk's office, is "Should defendant, who was charged...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34…Last

Retired Policeman's Pension Benefits Were Wrongly Paid to His Estranged Spouse Rather Than to His Estate, Where He Had Not Designated Anyone to Receive the Pension Benefit if He Died

Isaac v. Board of Trustees, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Two kinds of benefits are payable to retired members of the.Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("PFRS"). One is a pension benefit, a part of the member's compensation for past services. Pension benefits go to the person whom the member designates, or to the member's estate if no designation is made. The other is a survivor's benefit, which goes to the member's widow for the duration of his or her widowhood. Former Newark policeman Keith Isaac made no designation as to his pension benefits, though he did list his estranged wife, Roxanne, as his spouse when he filed for retirement. Based on that, Isaac's pension benefits were distributed to Roxanne. Isaac's estate contested that, and today the Supreme Court held that the estate should have gotten the pension monies....

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....

"Liberal Standards" for Standing "Are Not Equivalent to No Standards At All," the Supreme Court Says

New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As Justice Pierre-Louis observed in her opinion for a unanimous Court in this case today, New Jersey state courts have long "take[n] a more liberal approach to standing than federal law." But in this appeal, the statute sued upon, the Franchise Practices Act, N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 et seq. ("FPA"), stated that only a "franchisee" could sue its franchisor. Because plaintiff here ("NJCAR") was not a franchisee but an association of franchisees, NJCAR lacked standing to bring a FPA case....

Compassionate Release Act Does Not Require Physical Examination of Inmates Seeking Relief, But Denial of Relief in This Case Was Arbitrary and Capricious

M.R. v. New Jersey Department of Corrections, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Plaintiff appealed the denial of his petition for release under the Compassionate Release Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.51 ("CRA"). He argued that he had not been physically examined by a physician, and that the statute required a physical examination. The Appellate Division determined that the statute did not require a physical examination and upheld the denial of compassionate release. Today, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Hoffman, the Supreme Court agreed that no physical examination was required, but reversed the denial of compassionate relief as insupportable....