On January 16, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme court decided the Middlesex County case of State v. Guillermo Santamaria. Justice Timpone wrote for a unanimous court. The principle issues involved the permissible use of graphic photographs and prosecutorial comment regarding the defendant’s silence. These are highly discretionary evidentiary issues. In cases like these, the high […]

The Court continued in relevant part: On a motion to suppress evidence for which a warrant was obtained, the trial court’s review is limited to the information contained within the four corners of the supporting affidavit, as supplemented by sworn testimony before the issuing judge that is recorded contemporaneously. Here, the State properly identified the […]

Justice Timpone continued in relevant part: Search warrants are prospective in nature—they authorize the taking of action. A later-obtained search warrant does not retroactively validate preceding warrantless conduct that is challenged through a suppression motion focused on the legitimacy of the seizure that gave rise to a later search. The State must bear the burden […]

The Court continued in relevant part: Defendants filed a motion to suppress evidence seized “without a warrant.” In response, the State challenged that framing of the issue and relied on the search warrant to validate the initial stop. The trial court held a conference with defense counsel and the State. The parties engaged in substantial […]

On March 29, 2018, the new Jersey Supreme Court decided the Ocean county case of State v. Aharon Atwood and Shalom Mizrahi. The principal issue was whether a search warrant could retroactively justify the warrantless motor vehicle stop that preceded the issuance of the warrant. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Timpone held in relevant […]

On January 8, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of IMO the Expungement of the Arrest/Charge Records of T.B., J.N.-T. & R.C. The principal issue was whether Drug Court graduates seeking expungement under N.J.S. 2C:35-14(m) are entitled to a rebuttable presumption that their petitions are consistent with the “public interest.” Writing for […]

The appellate panel continued: In a similar context, in D.C. v. F.R., we concluded the PDVA applied prospectively, not retroactively. In 1994, the PDVA’s definition of “victim of domestic violence” was expanded to include persons subjected to violence by persons he or she dated. Id. at 597. D.C. involved domestic violence that occurred in 1993 […]

The Court continued: Thus, SASPA protects victims of unwanted sexual contact or lewd acts or attempts to commit the same. A person cannot seek protection against words, threats, or sexual harassment alone under SASPA. Here, the trial court found plaintiff’s account credible and defendant admitted speaking to her. It is clear plaintiff felt threatened by […]

The appellate panel continued: Signed into law on November 9, 2015, SASPA was intended by the Legislature to expand the remedies available to victims of sexual violence. Senate Judiciary Committee, Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act of 2015, S. 2164-4078 (N.J. 2015) (hereinafter Senate Judiciary Report). Prior to SASPA, victims of sexual violence could only obtain […]

On December 4, 2018, the Appellate Division decided the Bergen County case of R.L.U. v. J.P. The principal issue was whether the Sexual Assault Survivor Protection Act of 2015 could be used to impose a restraining order on a defendant based on conduct that occurred before the Act’s effective date. Writing for a unanimous three-judge […]