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:
Sharing Porn Doesn’t Warrant Official’s Firing, Court Rules
A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that removal from office was not warranted for a local government official who sent a pornographic video to members of a Facebook group.
Capitol Report: Open Recall Bill Amendments Ease NJSBA Consumer Protection Concerns
This week’s Capitol Report covers the NJSBA’s advocacy on the Motor Vehicle Open Recall Notice and Fair Compensation Act, proposed legislation that would reform outstanding vehicle recalls and wages for mechanics. The NJSBA initially opposed the bill, but testified in support of amendments that protect consumers who purchase vehicles. Read the full report here.
Steps to Interpreting NJ-RULLCA
More than a decade ago, New Jersey overhauled its limited liability company (LLC) statute. The New Jersey Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, N.J.S.A. 42:2C-1 et seq. (NJ-RULLCA), adopted on Sept. 19, 2012, became effective on March 18, 2013, for newly formed LLCs and on March 1, 2014, for all LLCs.
Highlights from the NJSBA Annual Bowling and Networking Event
Thanks to everyone who joined the NJSBA at Bowlero North Brunswick on Feb. 27 for a fun night of lighthearted competition and networking. Check out the photo album here.
Ex-Archer Partner Sworn In as NJ’s New U.S. Attorney
John Giordano, a New Jersey native and former partner at Archer & Greiner in Philadelphia, has been appointed by the U.S. attorney general as the state’s top federal prosecutor on an interim basis, bringing his extensive legal experience to one of the state’s most prominent law enforcement roles.
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – March 6, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CRIMINAL LAW
Ofeldt v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corrs., Appellate Division, Judge Gummer. Ofeldt, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, appealed a final agency decision by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) that upheld findings of guilt and imposed sanctions for attempting to escape detention and tampering with locking devices, among other violations. Ofeldt argued that the record lacked substantial evidence. On March 7, 2022, a DOC officer reported that Ofeldt, while returning from the shower, attempted to exit the area by kicking the tier gate and manipulating his handcuffs. He was found with a razor, which he used to damage his handcuffs and belt and free one hand. Despite several orders to stop, he continued his actions until an extraction team secured him. Ofeldt was charged with multiple violations, including attempting escape and tampering with locking devices. He pleaded not guilty to some charges but guilty to others, including tampering with a locking device. During the disciplinary hearing, Ofeldt’s counsel argued that the evidence did not support the charges, particularly the escape attempt. The disciplinary hearing officer found Ofeldt guilty on all charges, citing evidence that he attempted to escape by kicking the gate and removing his restraints. The hearing officer imposed sanctions of 200 days in a restorative housing unit and loss of commutation time and privileges. The assistant superintendent upheld the decision, noting the risk to institutional safety posed by Ofeldt’s actions. On appeal, the court found sufficient evidence to support the escape attempt charge, noting that even if further steps were needed to complete the crime, Ofeldt’s attempt was evident by his conduct. The court also found substantial evidence for the tampering charge, as Ofeldt admitted to freeing himself from restraints. The court concluded that Ofeldt received all procedural due process rights, dismissing his claims of due process violations related to video review and witness confrontation. The court affirmed the DOC’s decision.
CRIMINAL LAW
State of New Jersey v. A.B., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant A.B. appealed a conviction for sexually assaulting T.R., a minor, challenging several trial court decisions, including the admission of fresh complaint testimony and the denial of motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial. Defendant allegedly sexually assaulted T.R. during a family sleepover at defendant’s home in 2017, which T.R. disclosed to A.R., T.R.’s mother, in 2022. Defendant challenged the admissibility of fresh complaint evidence and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during summation. The trial court found the fresh complaint testimony admissible, determining it was spontaneous, voluntary, and made within a reasonable time given T.R.’s age and the circumstances. The trial court also denied the defendant’s motions for acquittal and a new trial, finding the evidence sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and no manifest denial of justice. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court’s decisions, concluding that the prosecutor’s comments during summation that allegedly improperly vouched for witnesses’ credibility were not egregious enough to warrant a new trial. The court further held that the fresh complaint evidence was properly admitted based on the trial court’s credibility determinations, and the jury’s verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, including the victim’s testimony recounting the sexual assault. The court also declined to consider the ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, suggesting they be raised in a post-conviction relief proceeding.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Weathersbee, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant Michael Weathersbee appealed his conviction for murder and related weapons offenses. Weathersbee was convicted for the shooting of Laquan Clark, who was found deceased in his car after leaving a bar. Video footage linked a Jeep Cherokee, registered to Weathersbee’s father, to the scene, with investigators identifying Weathersbee as having exclusive use of the vehicle. Weathersbee moved to exclude his statements to police, claiming a violation of his rights against self-incrimination and due process.. The trial court admitted the full recorded statement, despite defendant’s claims of coercion and improper police conduct during the interrogation. On appeal, Weathersbee argued that that the trial court improperly admitted a police interrogation recording and failed to redact certain prejudicial portions. The court vacated the judgment of conviction, citing cumulative errors, including the improper admission of the interrogation recording, the trial court’s failure to redact prejudicial content, and erroneous jury instructions regarding the certain-persons charge. The court noted numerous issues with Weathersbee’s interrogation, including underplaying the importance of Miranda warnings, the officers’ aggressive, unprofessional, and intimidating conduct toward Weathersbee, and their promises to treat him more leniently than other suspects. The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court emphasizing the need for adherence to constitutional protections during police interrogations and trial proceedings.
CRIMINAL LAW
In the Matter of Registrant G.L., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Registrant appealed the denial of his request for a psychological evaluation and an order classifying him as a Tier II sex offender under Megan’s Law. Registrant lured his ex-girlfriend to his residence and assaulted and raped her. He pled guilty to sexual assault and criminal contempt for violating a protection order and was classified as a level one sex offender in New York. He later moved to New Jersey, where he was served with a notice to classify him as a Tier II offender. Registrant did not challenge his RRAS score or the determination he was at moderate level of risk for re-offense but argued his case was “unique” and fell “outside the heartland” of Megan’s Law tiering cases. Trial court found insufficient evidence to warrant a psychological evaluation and found registrant failed to demonstrate that his case was unique or that the RRAS did not adequately account for his circumstances. Court found registrant failed to demonstrate that a further evaluation, including the introduction of an expert’s opinion, was warranted. Registrant’s lack of notification requirements in New York was insufficient evidence to warrant a ^psychological evaluation and to challenge the Tier II classification.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Cortes, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his PCR petition without an evidentiary hearing. Competing drug dealers were found dead, cellphone records showed defendant was near the location where the bodies were found and DNA in his truck matched one of the victims. Jury found defendant guilty of charges including conspiracy to commit murder and leading a narcotics trafficking network. Defendant’s PCR petition asserted improper hearsay, failure to retain experts, properly investigate or interview witnesses and newly discovered evidence. PCR court found defendant’s claims procedurally barred and insufficient to establish ineffective assistance Defendant argued PCR court erred in holding trial counsel was not ineffective in failing to investigate, interview a witness and engage experts, and argued a Brady violation for state’s failure to disclose a key witness’s recanting statement. Court affirmed the denial of PCR on the ineffective assistance claims but reversed in part, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the state or defendant’s counsel possessed witness’s recanting statement before the trial concluded.