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:
Legal Users Beware: Gen AI Models Can Be Less Secure Than Expected
There has always been some level of risk involved when it comes to gen AI, from hallucinations to biased output based on training data.
NJSBA to Host Annual PRIDE Flag Raising Ceremony
Join the NJSBA as it raises the PRIDE flag over the New Jersey Law Center on June 4. Members of the LGBTQ Rights Section will be on hand for the celebration, which is free and open to all. The festivities will start at noon. Learn more here.
Uncertainty ‘Opening the Door’ To Partner Comp Changes in 2025
With strong performances throughout the Am Law 200, partner pay evolved and surged into a different stratosphere last year.
Capitol Report: Appellate Division Invalidates Attorney Exemption From Debt Adjusters Statute
This week’s Capitol Report covers the NJSBA’s successful amicus advocacy in Anchor Law Firm v. State of New Jersey, along with the Association’s comments on landlord-tenant complaint forms and HDMI standards in court presentations. Read the full report here.
Pronoun Police’: New Uncertainty After EEOC Workplace Rules Struck Down
Attorneys are being warned to expect more confusion than clarity when it comes to transgender rights in the workplace following a Texas judge’ s decision gutting Equal Employment Opportunity Commission anti-harassment rules
DECISON SUMMARIES:
Click on any decision below to get the full opinion
from the New Jersey Judiciary – May 22, 2025
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
There are no decisions approved for publication.
NOT APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Bethea, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion for new counsel and his convictions for attempted sexual assault, terroristic threats, criminal restraint and criminal sexual contact. Victim had known defendant for over 40 years and asked him to paint her home. During a subsequent visit, defendant asked victim for sex, she refused and he assaulted her. When he allowed her to go to the bathroom, she tried to run from the house but defendant caught her by her hair. She was able to text her son to call police. Police arrived and arrested defendant. Defendant argued trial court’ s denial of his request for new counsel on the third day of jury selection, without conducting an inquiry, deprived him of his constitutional rights. Trial counsel continued to represent defendant during the trial, until the Office of the Public Defender requested to have a pool attorney appointed for defendant. After the verdict, defendant’ s new counsel moved for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Trial judge denied the motion. Court found that because defendant requested his public defender be replaced by private counsel, trial judge should have analyzed the Furguson factors. State conceded trial judge did not analyze the Furguson factors when defendant initially asked for new counsel and when judge decided his motion for a new trial. Both parties asserted the record was sufficient for court to decide the issue. Court found the facts of the case did not create a reasonable inference that the retention of new counsel would have caused a considerable delay. The fourth Furguson factor also favored defendant because he gave legitimate reasons for the delay, namely, defense counsel: not conducting motion practice during the entirety of her representation; allegedly ignoring his suggestions; and acting without his input. The majority of the Furguson factors favored defendant, and trial judge misapplied her discretion by not assessing all the factors and making the appropriate findings. Court also noted the jury instructions on terroristic threats were flawed because they did not align with State v. Fair, 256 N.J. 213. Court vacated defendant’ s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. S.B., Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Defendant assisted victim in unlocking her car after she locked the keys inside and falsely claimed to work for Social Services. He said he had jobs he needed to fill and victim met him to give him her resume. He then said they should meet to talk about her interview, lured her to his apartment, threatened her with a knife and beat and raped her. She escaped and stabbed defendant with his knife to stop him pursuing her and ran to a neighboring apartment yelling for help. Jury in defendant’ s first trial could not reach a verdict and second jury convicted him on kidnapping, aggravated assault and aggravated sexual assault. Defendant did not testify at either trial, but filed a Sands/Brunson motion that was never heard before either trial. Defendant’ s PCR petition asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel’s failure to renew a motion for a medical expert regarding defendant’ s injuries, inadequate advice on his right to testify, and failure to investigate witnesses or move for a new trial. Defendant submitted certifications from his brother alleging someone told him victim’ s roommate said victim said she lied and that roommate said victim stated she tried to kill defendant because he did not pay her. State had interviewed roommate who denied any knowledge. Defendant also argued counsel failed to move forward with a Sands/Brunson hearing and did not properly advise him whether his pending charges or prior convictions ^would be admissible at trial. PCR judge held a hearing on the Sands/Brunson claim and denied defendant’ s PCR claims. Defendant contended trial counsel provided incorrect legal advice regarding defendant’s right to testify. Court affirmed, rejecting defendant’s claim that PCR court erred in denying defendant’ s claims alleging counsel’s inadequate advice regarding testifying. PCR court held an evidentiary hearing and its factual findings were supported by the record. Defendant’s other claims were either barred as already raised on appeal, waived as available but omitted from direct appeal or lacked substantive merit.
CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE
State v. Johnson, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. The state appealed an interlocutory order of the trial court that granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a pedestrian investigatory stop. In 2024, a grand jury indicted defendant on multiple charges, including weapon possession during a controlled dangerous substance offense and possession of CDS with intent to distribute. These charges stemmed from an incident where a police officer stopped the defendant after responding to a 9-1-1 call about a fight in a convenience store. The officer found defendant in possession of a loaded firearm. In moving to suppress the evidence, defendant argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The trial court found that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity, as defendant’ s actions were consistent with non-criminal behavior, such as exiting a store and handling a bag. The trial court accordingly granted defendant’s suppression motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the suppression of evidence, concluding that the officer’ s observations of defendant did not meet the constitutional threshold for reasonable suspicion, as defendant’s conduct did not suggest criminal activity, and the officer’s suspicion was based on a hunch rather than specific and articulable facts.
CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE
State v. Gayden, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. State appealed the grant of defendant’ s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a pedestrian investigatory stop. A 9-1-1 call reported a person carrying a weapon. Officers investigated and found defendant, who matched the description given by the caller, and told defendant they wanted to talk to him. Defendant walked away, officer detained him by grabbing him around the torso and felt a heavy metallic object in defendant’ s fanny pack. Officers placed defendant in handcuffs, conducted a pat down and found a handgun in defendant’s open fanny pack. Officer testified that defendant looked startled” when the police pulled up and that in his experience a person who looks startled at the arrival of police ” ha[s] something to hide.” Trial court initially denied the motion to suppress without a hearing, but that decision was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing. On remand, motion court found officer’ s testimony was not credible and was inconsistent with video surveillance and the written report completed at the time of defendant’ s arrest. Motion court also rejected State’s argument that the stop took place in a high crime area. State argued motion court excluded evidence relating to the 9-1-1 call and its adverse credibility ruling was clearly mistaken. Court noted the record did not establish the identity of the 9-1-1 caller or the basis on which he or she obtained the information given to the dispatcher. Observation by police of a person who matched the description given by an unknown informant, who did not explain how the information was obtained, was insufficient to constitute reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop without corroboration. Motion court’s credibility findings were supported by the record.
CRIMINAL LAW | EVIDENCE
State v. George, Appellate Division, Per Curiam. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress a handgun seized without a warrant. Police responded to a shots-fired call and found defendant with a foot injury, which was identified as a gunshot wound at the hospital. Officers reviewed surveillance footage that showed a woman, who had been near defendant, place a handgun on a windowsill and later retrieve it. Woman was placed in a patrol car and given Miranda warnings after officers saw the surveillance footage. Woman told police that defendant had given her the gun, which was in her possession at her daughter’ s apartment and she was released from the handcuffs. Woman and her daughter signed consent to search forms and officers seized the gun. Defendant pled guilty to second-degree aggravated assault and second-degree certain persons not to have weapons, after trial court denied his suppression motion. Defendant argued state failed to prove the consent to search was voluntary since it occurred during a ” secret custodial interrogation.” Trial court found the consent to search was voluntary, supported by officer’ s testimony and body-worn camera footage. Court found no basis to disturb trial court’s ruling that consent was knowing, voluntary and legally obtained. Daughter voluntarily consented to the search with full knowledge and understanding of her choice in the matter and her right to refuse and fact that woman was also present and did not object further supported the legality of consent. Additionally, when woman signed the consent to search form, she was in the apartment with her daughter, unrestrained, and advised of her options, including her right to refuse consent, thereby dissipating any taint from the prior detention.