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:
Protecting Those Who Safeguard the Rule of Law: A Call for Legislative Action
A judicial robe is not fashioned of Kevlar; nor does a gavel hewn of wood provide ballistic-resistant protection. Upon assuming office, our state and federal jurists undertake an oath or affirmation which evinces their commitment to faithfully perform their duties pursuant to the constitutions of both the United States and the State of New Jersey, and to do so with impartiality.
Celebrate Juneteenth with the Minorities in the Profession Section
All are welcome at the New Jersey Law Center on June 18 to commemorate Juneteenth. Show off your historical knowledge in an evening of trivia, celebration and fellowship among the greater New Jersey legal community and beyond. Register today.
Ankle Injury Results in $1M Settlement for NJ Woman
A woman who fell at a restaurant in Elizabeth, NJ has agreed to settle her claims for $1 million. The accord came while the parties were on trial in Union County Superior Court.
Become a Sponsor of the NJSBF Medal of Honor
Support the New Jersey State Bar Foundation’s Medal of Honor Award Celebration and honorees retired state Supreme Court Justice Lee A. Solomon and NJSBA Past President Domenick Carmagnola. Proceeds benefit the Foundation’s Law School Scholarship Program. Become a sponsor today.
A New Jersey Legal Giant Has Died
Stuart A. Hoberman, a banking attorney at Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer and a former president of the New Jersey State Bar Association, died at age 78 on May 28
DECISION SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – June 10, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | LAND USE AND PLANNING
Garden State Outdoor, LLC v. Egg Harbor Twp., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed the trial court’s decision that granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, Egg Harbor Township and its Planning Board, upholding the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance and denying plaintiff’s application for variance relief. The case arose when plaintiff sought to erect a digital billboard in Egg Harbor Township, requiring variances from zoning restrictions, including a 1,000-foot distance requirement from intersections. The Planning Board denied the variance, citing safety concerns, despite plaintiff’s evidence suggesting no safety issues. Plaintiff challenged the ordinance’s constitutionality, arguing it violated free speech protections under the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions. The trial court found the ordinance content neutral and it served substantial government interests like traffic safety and aesthetics, thus passing intermediate scrutiny. On appeal, the court reversed, finding the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The court held that defendants failed to provide a “modicum of support” for the ordinance’s restrictions, as required by precedent, and noted that plaintiff’s evidence raised genuine issues of material fact regarding the ordinance’s application, including the fact that on-premises advertising billboards could be located within 1,000 feet of intersections despite creating the same traffic safety concerns. The court emphasized that mere reliance on the ordinance’s stated purposes was insufficient to justify the restriction on speech, necessitating a more substantial factual basis to uphold the ordinance’s constitutionality. The court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Sharrieff, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Torres, 246 N.J. 246, should apply retroactively and that the sentencing court failed to consider the overall fairness of consecutive sentences as required by State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627. Defendant was convicted for first-degree armed robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm, and first-degree murder. Initially sentenced to life plus 40 years, defendant’s sentence was later adjusted to life plus 15 years following a habeas corpus petition. Defendant’s subsequent appeals and petitions for post-conviction relief were consistently denied. In his latest motion, defendant contended that the sentencing court did not properly apply the Yarbough factors in light of Torres. The trial court, however, found that the sentencing process was comprehensive, addressing all relevant factors, and concluded that the sentence was lawful. On appeal, the court reviewed the legality of the sentence de novo, emphasizing that Torres did not establish a new rule of law warranting retroactive application. The court reiterated that the principles outlined in Torres were consistent with existing sentencing guidelines and that defendant’s sentence had been correctly imposed under Yarbough. The court affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion, concluding that no further review of the sentence was warranted under Rule 3:22-5.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Arcano, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed his conviction for multiple sexual offenses. Defendant was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old woman on a train ride, with the incident partially captured on surveillance cameras. Defendant claimed the encounter was consensual, while the prosecution presented evidence including testimony from the victim, her friend, and a sexual assault nurse examiner. Defendant challenged the admission of hearsay testimony, claimed prosecutorial misconduct during summation, challenged the relevance of fresh complaint testimony, and contested the imposition of consecutive sentences. The trial court found the hearsay testimony was admissible under the medical treatment exception, rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and admitted fresh complaint testimony to counter any inference of fabrication due to delayed reporting. On appeal, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions, finding no reversible error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings or the prosecutor’s conduct, finding that the prosecutor’s comments were a fair argument against defense counsel’s assertions of a consensual sexual encounter and that the victim’s disclosures to her friend were spontaneous and not directed by the friend’s questions. However, the court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing, noting potential inconsistencies in the trial court’s application of the Yarbough factors for consecutive sentences, particularly regarding the duration and independence of the offenses. The court instructed the trial court to reassess the sentences, considering the overall fairness and the defendant’s current circumstances.
CRIMINAL LAW
J.D.A. v. State, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Plaintiff appealed the grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action under the Mistaken Imprisonment Act. Plaintiff was indicted in 2014 for second-degree endangering the welfare of a child based on alleged sexual conduct. A jury convicted him in 2018, but the conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court’s “unanimity instruction was insufficient under the circumstances and deprived defendant of a fair trial.” Plaintiff pled guilty to a lesser charge of harassment as part of a plea agreement that the now-adult victim agreed with. In accordance with the plea agreement, trial court imposed only the mandatory minimum fines. Plaintiff filed a complaint under the MIA a month later. State moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff failed to prove his innocence of the original charge and was not eligible for damages because he entered a guilty plea. Trial court found plaintiff did not present evidence to support his innocence and noted that the plea to a lesser charge did not equate to exoneration. Court affirmed trial court’s decision and noted that plaintiff failed to present proof or even assert his innocence of the charge for which he was incarcerated as required by N.J.S.A. 52:4C-3(b). His reliance on the decision vacating his conviction was wholly misplaced since the judgment was reversed solely on a defect in the jury instructions and his reliance on his plea to a downgraded charge pursuant to a plea agreement held insufficient evidentiary value to sustain a claim.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Bertier, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant was accused of a variety of sex-related offenses that arose from an alleged assault that occurred at a casino hotel room and pled guilty to criminal restraint and harassment in the middle of jury selection. Trial court questioned defendant and he provided a factual basis for both offenses. Trial court also questioned defendant as to his immigration status; he stated he was a French citizen and had a U.S. passport and that he had enough time to get advice on immigration issues. Defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea before he was sentenced but before the court considered the motion, defendant and state reached a revised plea bargain. Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence. Defendant filed a PCR petition five years later alleging he was unaware his plea would have adverse immigration consequences. PCR court found defendant was put on notice at the time of his plea that he could be subject to deportation as a result of the charges. Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to inform him of the deportation risks associated with his plea. Court affirmed for the reasons expressed by the PCR court, noting that defendant’s petition was procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-4 and 3:22-3. Court also noted that defendant’s assertions contradicted the testimony he provided under oath during his plea colloquy.