This blog has in the past noted anniversaries of Supreme Court decisions involving appeals from the Court's Committee on Character, on which I served for fifteen years. Today is another such anniversary, as on October 22, 1997, the Court decided In re Triffin, 151 N.J. 510 (1997)....
The Supreme Court announced that it has granted certification in two new cases. Both are criminal appeals. One is from a published opinion of the Appellate Division, while the other is from an unpublished per curiam decision by a three-judge panel....
On this date in 2005, the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. Corp., 185 N.J. 100 (2005). The case involved a plaintiff who was shot in an apartment building in Atlantic City, which left him paralyzed. He brought a negligence suit against a number of defendants, including Atlantic City Housing & Urban Renewal Associates ("ACHURA"), the owner of the apartment building....
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?"...
The final week of the 2024-25 Term was a quiet one. The Supreme Court did not issue any opinions. The Appellate Division published no opinions. As is common, there were not even many unpublished Appellate Division opinions....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....
Chipola v. Flannery, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). As discussed here, this case was one of two that the Supreme Court agreed to review in its first grants of review of the current Term. The question presented was "Does a claim alleging false light invasion of privacy have a one-year statute of limitations, see Swan v. Boardwalk Regency Corp., 407 N.J. Super. 108 (App. Div 2009)?" Today, agreeing with the Law Division and the Appellate Division, the Supreme Court answered "yes."...
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....
