Criminal Law Library Blog
These News Briefs and Decision Summaries are from the the New Jersey State Bar Association. They are an exclusive benefit of the Association in partnership with the New Jersey Law Journal. A subscription may be necessary to access the full text of some of the items listed:
NEWS BRIEFS:
Law School Securities Arbitration Clinics: An Investment Worth Making
Since 1987, retail securities disputes which arise pursuant to an investment contract must be submitted to arbitration where the investor has consented to forgo court litigation.
NJSBA Artificial Intelligence Special Committee Seeks New Members
Want to explore the world of AI? Stay at the forefront of the latest products, legislation and services impacting the profession through the NJSBA AI Special Committee. To join, fill out the form here and discover the NJSBA’s wide range of Special Committees for every practice area.
Crash That Exacerbated Existing Back, Neck Injuries Settles for $1.15M
A married couple injured in a read-end collision have agreed to settle their claims for more than $1 million, after both plaintiffs alleged the crash exacerbated existing back injuries.
North Korean Defector Tells of Life in a Nation Without Law
A special NJICLE seminar offered a rare window into North Korea’s repressive legal system as told by a former soldier who escaped the reclusive nation. Read more here.
The New Jersey Institute of Continuing Legal Education offered a rare window into North Korea’s repressive legal system as told by a former soldier who escaped the reclusive nation
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – June 30, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
In the Matter of Protest of Sisbarro Towing & Recovery, LLC, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Towing company appealed the denial of its prequalification application for towing services on the Garden State Parkway. Authority issued a request for prequalification of contractors which required specific garage facility standards, including adequate vehicle storage and restroom facilities. Authority inspected company’s facility, found insufficient storage capacity and inadequate restroom access and denied the application. Company argued that it was in compliance. At the hearing, Authority’s representative testified company’s storage area was full and did not meet the required capacity for 50 vehicles and one bus. Additionally, the restroom facilities were unsafe and inconvenient for patrons. Company asserted it had additional storage capacity at a nearby lot and could make restroom improvements. Hearing officer found company failed to demonstrate compliance with the prequalification criteria and recommended denying the protest. Authority adopted the recommendation. Company argued its due process rights were violated because Authority relied on “undisclosed evidence” and did not safeguard company’s administrative due process rights. Court declined to consider the due process arguments because they were not raised at the agency level, noted that company did not file a protest with the Authority and found that Authority’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. P.A., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual assault and related offenses against a minor, following a jury trial. Defendant, who emigrated from Haiti, allegedly began to sexually assault victim in early 2018. Victim reported the abuse in 2020, leading to an investigation and defendant’s subsequent confession during a police interrogation, which was conducted with the assistance of a Creole-speaking detective. Defendant was arrested and indicted on multiple charges, including first-degree aggravated sexual assault. A plea agreement was reached, but defendant later moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming coercion by the victim’s mother. The trial court granted the motion, and the case proceeded to trial, resulting in a conviction on all counts. On appeal, defendant challenged the admissibility of his statement to police, the adequacy of jury instructions, the decision to allow withdrawal of the guilty plea, and alleged errors in conveying sentencing exposure. The trial court had found defendant’s statement admissible, ruling it was made voluntarily and with a knowing waiver of Miranda rights. The court upheld the trial court’s findings, noting the trial court’s thorough consideration of the circumstances. The court also addressed the jury instruction issues, concluding that the omission of a specific Hampton charge did not constitute plain error given the overall instructions on witness credibility. The court found no abuse of discretion in allowing the withdrawal of the guilty plea, as defendant’s claim of innocence and the lack of opposition from the state supported the decision. The court rejected defendant’s argument regarding sentencing exposure, noting that he was adequately informed of potential consequences.
CRIMINAL LAW
Li v. Dep’t of Corr., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Inmate appealed the denial of her claims for compensation for property she alleged was stolen or damaged by other inmates and a corrections officer. She sought compensation for four separate incidents of theft and damage to her property that occurred between 2022 and 2023. She asserted a corrections officer conspired with inmates to fabricate a disciplinary charge to facilitate the theft of her belongings valued at $9,369.41 in June 2022. She claimed the theft of a diary, a photo album, legal documents and clothing and food items. She also asserted items were removed from the facility’s storeroom and other property was damaged when she was placed in “close custody.” The June 2022 alleged theft was the subject of prior litigation in the court. Her claims were remanded due to her failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On remand, DOC adjudicated her claims as “disapproved.” Inmate argued DOC’s denials were arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. DOC pointed to inmate’s failure to provide receipts or other proof of ownership or to show negligence in the handling or storing of her property. Court affirmed, finding no basis to disturb DOC’s decision and noting inmate’s failure to provide supporting evidence such as witness statements or video footage.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Love, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief and his application to expunge a prior marijuana conviction. A friend of defendant’s girlfriend reported her missing after she talked to defendant. That same morning there was robbery in which defendant was a suspect. Police went to a trailer associated with a vehicle used in the robbery and arrested defendant, found heroin, searched trailer looking for missing girlfriend and found marijuana in the trailer. Defendant was indicted on multiple CDS charges and was convicted of heroin possession, and a lesser marijuana offense, but acquitted of cocaine charges. Defendant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. PCR court found the petition was untimely and defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was “factually inaccurate and conclusory.” PCR court denied expungement of the marijuana conviction because the statute did not permit the requested relief because defendant was convicted of a heroin possession on the same indictment as the marijuana charge. Defendant argued ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to object to improper summation by the prosecutor and failure to investigate, and asserted he showed excusable neglect for the late PCR petition. Court agreed the PCR petition was time-barred and that defendant failed to proffer any reason as to why his petition was not filed in a timely manner. Court held the expungement statute did not apply due to the concurrent heroin conviction. The court upheld the denial of a hearing for sentence reduction, because it was not a ground for PCR relief.
FAMILY LAW
R.A.D. v. C.D., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed a final restraining order issued under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The parties, married since 1998 and separated in November 2023. Plaintiff alleged harassment and stalking, claiming defendant repeatedly drove by his residence and placed tracking devices on his vehicles. Defendant asserted that her actions were not harassment but an attempt to gather evidence for a cohabitation defense in their divorce proceedings. The trial court found plaintiff’s testimony credible, determining that defendant’s actions constituted harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c) and that an FRO was necessary to prevent further domestic violence. The trial court rejected the stalking claim but found sufficient evidence of harassment, including defendant’s repeated drive-bys and the involvement of a third party in taking photographs. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in requiring her to hire a private investigator to collect evidence for her cohabitation defense and in drawing a negative inference from her decision not to testify. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that the findings were supported by credible evidence and that the FRO was necessary to protect plaintiff from future harassment. The court found no merit in defendant’s arguments regarding the cohabitation defense, the requirement to hire a private investigator, or the alleged negative inference drawn from her silence.