No one can say that in the days before Christmas, “not a creature was stirring” in our appellate courts. The Supreme Court issued one decision and the Appellate Division published three of its own. Here are summaries of those rulings:
State v. Knight, ___ N.J. ___ (2024). In an opinion reported at 477 N.J. Super. 400 (App. Div. 2023), and summarized here, the Appellate Division affirmed armed robbery convictions in these consolidated cases. In an opinion by Judge Sabatino, the panel rejected defendants’ contention that it was improper to replay video recordings multiple times, in slow motion, at the jury’s request. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed substantially for the reasons given in Judge Sabatino’s opinion. “Watching a video in slow motion is a commonplace method of playing a video that is not beyond the ken of an average juror. Pushing a button to play a video at a speed slower than normal to assist the jury in viewing the difficult-to-perceive recording here was not an alteration or distortion of the video. It was the same exact video — simply played in slow motion,” the Court said. The Justices also endorsed Judge Sabatino’s “recommendation that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider a model charge regarding jury requests to replay video evidence.”
Bulur v. The Office of the Attorney General, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). This opinion by Judge Smith held that the Attorney General exceeded his authority in taking over the operations of the Paterson Police Department without the consent of city officials. That ruling is already on its way to the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.
State v. Carlton, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). The Appellate Division, speaking through Judge Susswein, decided this case in November, as summarized here. This was an appeal from convictions for aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, burglary, and other charges. The matter was resubmitted to the Appellate Division, and this opinion appeared on December 19. The result is the same: the panel “vacate[d] defendant’s extended term sentence and remand[ed] for further proceedings in accordance with the Erlinger [v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024] )rule [announced after the trial level ruling in Carlton’s case] to have a jury determine whether defendant is eligible for enhanced punishment as a persistent offender.”
State v. Arrington, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2024). This was another opinion by Judge Sabatino, in a murder case whose facts he characterized as “gruesome.” Judge Sabatino concisely summarized the issue and the panel’s ruling as follows: “The primary legal issue in this appeal is whether criminal defendants in New Jersey invoking N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 are permitted to testify at trial about their own allegedly insane mental state without accompanying expert testimony from a qualified mental health professional. We concur with the trial court that such lay testimony by a defendant, untethered to admissible expert opinion substantiating the defendant’s ‘disease of the mind,’ is inadmissible under our Rules of Evidence and insufficient to advance an insanity defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1.” The opinion discussed at length the insanity defense, which sprung from the English decision in M’Naghten’s Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843), New Jersey’s statutory and caselaw history with that defense, and decisions in other jurisdictions. Judge Jacobs filed a concurring opinion, “join[ing] in the outcome” but suggesting that “a defendant should not be categorically precluded from advancing an insanity defense in those rare instances where expert testimony is unsolicited or unavailable.” It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that this case will end up in the Supreme Court.