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 leave to appeal case is State v. R.F.P. The question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Did defendant satisfy his burden of establishing that the alleged sexual assault victim’s pre-incident mental health records should be produced for the trial court’s in camera review, see State v. Chambers, 252 N.J. 561 (2023)?” The Law Division granted defendant’s motion for an in camera review of the victim’s pre-incident mental health records and denied the State’s motion for reconsideration. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division, though applying a deferential standard of review of the discovery issue before it, reversed both of those rulings in an unpublished per curiam opinion.
Only one of the four appeals in which the Court granted review featured a published opinion of the Appellate Division. That case is Township of Jackson v. Getzel Bee, LLC. The Appellate Division’s opinion was reported at 480 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2025) and was discussed here. The question presented there is “Does the particular parcel of land to be acquired by a municipality through eminent domain have to be put to public use, or may it be exchanged for other land that will serve that purpose?” Reversing a decision of the Law Division, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division held that property cannot be condemned solely to exchange it for a different property that will be put to public use.
The other eminent domain case is Borough of Seaside Park v. Shree Jyoti, LLC. That case presents this question: “Is the ordinance that authorizes a municipality to acquire property through its eminent domain power under the Local Land and Buildings Law, N.J.S.A. 40A:12-5(a), required to set forth the specific public purpose for which the property is being acquired?” In an unpublished per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel, the Appellate Division applied a deferential standard of review and affirmed the ruling of the Law Division rejecting defendant’s challenge to the exercise of eminent domain.
Finally, in State v. Myers, the question presented is “Where defendant entered a global agreement and pled guilty to felony murder for one incident and to robbery for a separate incident, then successfully challenged his robbery conviction on appeal, can defendant withdraw his guilty plea to felony murder?” The Law Division held that defendant did not have right to withdraw his guilty plea under either Court Rule or applicable caselaw. The Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion by a three-judge panel.
