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:...
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....
State v. Kelly, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). Judge Gummer wrote the panel's opinion in this case. The panel reversed defendant's conviction on weapons and criminal restraint charges, based on a set of facts remarkably similar to those in State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80 (2004)....
State v. Byrd, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Justice Noriega authored the Court's unanimous opinion in this case today. During the murder trial that led to this appeal, allegations of misconduct by a certain juror, No. 8, surfaced. That juror allegedly conducted outside research, discussed the case with third parties, texted one of the defendants, and expressed an intent to find defendants guilty. The trial judge questioned Juror No. 8, but on appeal from defendants' convictions, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's inquiry "was insufficiently tailored to the allegations against the juror, failed to probe into the heart of the allegations, and was therefore inadequate." The Court remanded the case for further proceedings....
State v. Hernandez-Peralta, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). Justice Wainer Apter's decision today for a 5-2 Supreme Court majority began by phrasing the issue presented. "In this appeal, we consider whether sentencing counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate defendant's citizenship status beyond asking him if he was a United States citizen and receiving an unequivocal ‘yes,' and therefore not advising him that his plea could make him subject to deportation." The majority found, based on the particular facts, that counsel was not constitutionally ineffective, reversing the two lower courts. Justice Noriega, joined by Justice Fasciale, dissented....
Englewood Hospital & Medical Center v. State, ___ N.J. ___ (2025). New Jersey has had a charity care program, in one form or another, for 178 years. As Justice Fasciale summarized the current charity care program in his opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, under the current program "hospitals cannot turn away a patient for inability to pay, N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.64, and patients who qualify for charity care shall not be billed for services rendered, N.J.A.C. 10:52-11.4. Instead, ‘disproportionate share hospitals' (DSHs), or hospitals that serve a disproportionate number of low-income patients, see N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.52, receive annual subsidies from the Health Care Subsidy Fund (HCSF) in exchange for providing charity care, see N.J.S.A. 26:2H-18.52, .58, .58d."...
The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in five more appeals. On of those matters is before the Court on leave to appeal. In the others, the Court granted certification....
Each of the last three days saw the Appellate Division issue one published opinion in a criminal appeal. Here are summaries of those rulings:...
The last seven days, an especially busy period for me, featured one Supreme Court opinion and two published Appellate Division decisions. Here are summaries of those rulings:...
Anchor Law Firm, PLLC v. State of New Jersey, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025). The Debt Adjustment and Credit Counseling Act, N.J.S.A. 17:16G-1 et seq. ("DACCA"), prohibits debt adjusters in New Jersey from operating for a profit. There is an exception for attorneys not "principally engaged" (a term not defined in the statute) in debt adjustment. That exception, adopted in a 1986 amendment, replaced a prior version of the DACCA that had exempted all attorneys from its scope....