In the time since the most recent post on this blog about Supreme Court opinions, the Court issued rulings in three cases. Here are summaries:
State v. Miles, ___ N.J. ___ (2026). Facial Recognition Technology (“FRT”) is sometimes used by the State in its criminal investigations. In State v. Arteaga, 476 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 2023), the Appellate Division ordered the State to produce thirteen items of FRT-related discovery to the defendant there. In this appeal, which involved murder and weapons charges, the Law Division directed that the State produced those same thirteen items in discovery. The Appellate Division denied leave to appeal, but the Supreme Court granted leave and affirmed in part and reversed in part in a unanimous opinion by Justice Fasciale. The Court held that “a defendant’s discovery related to the investigative use of such technology remains a case-specific inquiry,” and that FRT-related discovery could not be “reduced to a rigid thirteen-item checklist.” The Court concluded that the Law Division had acted within its discretion in requiring the production of “1) discovery identifying the FRT tools and materials the State used in its investigation; and (2) discovery related to how the State utilized those FRT tools and materials to prosecute defendant.” But that court’s further requirement that the State produce “proprietary FRT-related information, such as the FRT source code,” was premature and required a more developed record. The Court thus remanded for further proceedings in that regard.
Almonte v. Township of Union, ___ N.J. ___ (2026). The 1984 version of N.J.S.A. 26:2K-14 of the Emergency Medical Services Act (“EMSA”), the version applicable here …, immunized paramedics who perform advanced life support services “in good faith” and “in accordance with [the EMSA].” The issue in this appeal was whether the paramedics in this case had acted in accordance with the EMSA by “maintaining direct voice communication with” and “taking orders from a licensed physician” The Law Division had granted a defense motion for summary judgment of immunity, and the Appellate Division affirmed. After describing the facts and the background of the EMSA in detail, Justice Hoffman’s opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed as well, relying on both statutory plain language and the legislative history of the EMSA.
State v. Lee, ___ N.J. ___ (2026). Chief Justice Rabner wrote the Court’s unanimous opinion in this case, in which defendant was convicted of burglary. The issue was the reliability of fingerprint evidence. Defendant moved to bar evidence of fingerprint analysis, citing two reports on that subject. The Law Division denied that motion. The Appellate Division reversed, finding error in the Law Division’s failure to conduct a pretrial hearing about the reliability of fingerprint evidence under Evidence Rule 702. The Appellate Division identified other errors as well. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision as to the need for an Evidence Rule 702 hearing and remanded the case for a Special Adjudicator, Judge Messano (ret.), to conduct such a hearing. The Court did not, however, reverse the conviction, but summarily remanded, retained jurisdiction, and set a briefing schedule that will take effect once the Special Adjudicator submits a report. The Court deferred any ruling on the other errors that the Appellate Division had found.
