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:
Legal News
NJSBF Awards Scholarships to 13 New Jersey Law Students
Since 1975, the New Jersey State Bar Foundation has fostered pride in the legal profession by supporting the education of future lawyers. Check out what some of this year’s scholarship recipients shared about how the awards make a difference as they pursue careers in the law.
Judge Rejected Request to Detain Immigrant at Center of Fight Between Trump, Governor
State prosecutors sought pretrial detention last month for an undocumented immigrant accused of killing a woman and her daughter in a drunken driving crash in Lakewood, but a Superior Court judge denied the state’s request. The fatal crash has sparked a new fight between the Trump and Murphy administrations. Read more here.
NJSBA Board of Trustees Acts at July Meeting
Follow the latest actions taken at the NJSBA Board of Trustees meetings. The Board convened in July to weigh in on changes in DWI prosecutions around the state, confirm the honorees for the 2025 Pro Bono Awards and approve meeting locations in 2026 and 2027. Read more here.
Prosecutor Takes over New Jersey Police Force Amid Deadly Shooting Reportedly Involving Trooper
“Serious concerns” raised over a New Jersey police department’s handling of a deadly shooting that reportedly involved a state trooper has prompted a county prosecutor’s office to take over the force’s daily operations indefinitely. Hunterdon County Prosecutor Renee Robeson said the Franklin Township Police Department’s chief and a sergeant had been placed on administrative leave by the town. Read more here.
Supreme Court and Appellate Decision Summaries
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion from the New Jersey Judiciary – August 12, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
Tribal Sovereign Immunity
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit – Rashonna Ransom v. GreatPlains Finance LLC – Governments turn money into power. In go taxes; out flow police, pensions, and preschools. To figure out whether something is part of the government, then, often the best place to look is whether it matches either half of government’s signature formula: Does it fund the government, and is it controlled by the government? This case presented a firm whose governmental status is puzzling—a consumer lender owned by an Indian tribe. Lenders are sometimes part of tribal governments. But even though this one is mostly controlled by the tribe, a judgment against it would not affect the tribe’s revenue. That factor often matters more and speaks more clearly here. The Third Circuit held that the lender is not part of the tribe’s government and so lacks its sovereign immunity.
Criminal
State of New Jersey vs. Malihki X. Oliver (Mercer County and Statewide) – In this matter of first impression, the Appellate Division addressed the elements of second-degree purchasing firearm parts to manufacture a firearm without a serial number, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(k) (Paragraph k), and the application of the territorial jurisdiction statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. In doing so, the court rejected defendant’s argument that Paragraph k is comprised of one element. Instead, the court concluded Paragraph k requires the state prove defendant: (1) purchased a ghost gun kit; (2) acted with purpose to manufacture or assemble a firearm; and (3) was not registered or licensed to manufacture or assemble a firearm in this state. Although the evidence presented to the grand jury revealed the purchase of ghost gun kits occurred in Pennsylvania, and was lawful in that jurisdiction, the state presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer defendant purchased the kits with the purpose of manufacturing firearms in New Jersey, satisfying the culpability element under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14(h)(3)(b), and territorial jurisdiction under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a). The court also rejected the state’s argument that defendant waived his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment when he entered his guilty plea. Although the motion was not specifically referenced in the plea form, defendant did not indicate “Yes” or “No” in response to Question 4(e), “Do you further understand that by pleading guilty you are waiving your right to appeal the denial of all other pretrial motions except the following”? Nor did defendant directly answer the court’s inquiry, “Do you understand by pleading guilty you are waiving your right to appeal the denial of any and all pretrial motions you or your attorney filed?” Further, the state did not object when, during the plea hearing, defense counsel informed the court the “motion that was heard on the legality of the statute . . . can be appealed.”