The Supreme Court announced that it has granted review in four new appeals. Two of those cases, both criminal matters, are before the Court on leave to appeal. The other two, each one of them a civil case, came to the Court on grants of certification.
In State v. Rivas, one of the leave to appeal cases, the question presented, as phrased by the Supreme Court Clerk’s office, is “Where defendant did not challenge the admissibility of his March 13, 2024 statement to police in his prior appeal, can he raise that issue again in the trial proceedings giving rise to the instant appeal, and if so, did defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights?” The Law Division declined to suppress the March 13, 2024 statement. The Appellate Division, in an unpublished per curiam opinion by a two-judge panel, reversed that ruling. The Clerk’s office has noted that this case is sealed and that no briefs are available for public access.
The other leave to appeal matter is State v. Smith. The question presented there is “Does the framework for a trial court to assess a defendant’s request for access to police internal affairs records established in State v. Higgs, 253 N.J. 333, 353-60 (2023), apply when the State acknowledges that potential witnesses were the subjects of prior internal affairs investigations that require disclosure under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)?” The Law Division required disclosure of the records at issue. The State sought leave to appeal, which was granted. A two-judge Appellate Division panel, applying the abuse of discretion standard of review, entered an order reversing the Law Division’s ruling and remanding the case to a different judge, with directions to conduct an in camera review of the records.
Bank v. Lee presents this question: “Was plaintiffs’ description of defendant as a criminal substantially true such that defendant cannot maintain defamation claims against plaintiffs?” The Law Division granted summary judgment to defendant on the defamation issue. The Appellate Division affirmed in an opinion reported at 481 N.J. Super. 412 (App. Div. 2025).
Finally, the question presented in Hoiland v. AJD Construction Co., Inc. is “Was the contractual indemnification language sufficiently clear and unequivocal to require the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s own negligence, and if so, did it also require the subcontractor to the pay the counsel fees and costs owed to plaintiffs due to the general contractor’s rejection of plaintiffs’ offer of judgment?” The Law Division ruled that the general contractor was entitled to indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished opinion by a three-judge panel.
