The Supreme Court announced today that it has granted review in five new appeals. One of them is before the Court on leave to appeal, while in the others the Court granted certification.

The leave to appeal case is State v. Patel. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Did defendant prove all three parts of the test for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, see State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981), that the new evidence was:  (1) material to the issue and not merely cumulative or impeaching or contradictory; (2) discovered since the trial and not discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand; and (3) of the sort that would probably change the jury’s verdict if a new trial were granted?” A jury found defendant guilty of second-degree theft by deception. On defendant’s appeal, a two-judge Appellate Division panel, in an unpublished per curiam opinion, affirmed that conviction.

In State v. Carlton, the question presented is “If the determination of whether defendant was a persistent offender subject to an extended term sentence under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3 was made by a judge, instead of by a jury, see Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), does harmless error analysis apply, and does the statutory language of N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3 require that a judge, not a jury, determine if a defendant is a persistent offender?” As summarized here, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed the multiple convictions but remanded for reconsideration of the extended term sentence.

The question presented in State v. Wildgoose is “Is further relief warranted in this PCR (post-conviction relief) matter, where the appellate court found that the Attorney General’s Uniform Plea Negotiation Guidelines to Implement the Jessica Lunsford Act, P.L. 2014, c. 7 -- which have a graduated system differentiating between pre- and post-indictment plea offers -- did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights, and remanded for fact-finding limited to the absence of a pre-indictment plea offer in this matter?” As discussed here, that question presented essentially describes the ruling, reported at 479 N.J. Super. 331 (App. Div. 2024), being appealed from.

Here is the question presented in State v. Mustafa:  “Can a criminal defendant advance a diminished capacity defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-2 without expert testimony?” In an unpublished per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel, the Appellate Division upheld the Law Division’s ruling that expert testimony was required to assert a defense of diminished capacity.

Saving the qui tam matter for last, the question presented in State of New Jersey ex rel. Edelweiss Fund, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is “In this qui tam action, does the public disclosure bar apply, and do the 2023 amendments to the New Jersey False Claims Act -- specifically N.J.S.A. 2A:32C-9(c), which provides that a court shall not dismiss a relator’s claim based on the public disclosure bar if the Attorney General opposes dismissal -- apply to this matter?” On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Law Division granted plaintiff’s motion and denied that of defendants. A two-judge panel of the Appellate Division reversed in an unpublished per curiam opinion.