Stuart Rabner

In State v. Chen, the case involved a criminal prosecution where the victim identified the defendant as her attacker after the victim's husband showed her photos of his ex-girlfriend, leading to repeated viewings before a police photo array and trial identification. The trial court denied the defendant's request for a Wade hearing to challenge the identification's admissibility on grounds that no government officials had engaged in suggestive conduct. The court held that even absent state action, when a defendant shows highly suggestive circumstances by private parties that could produce a mistaken identification, trial judges must hold a pretrial hearing upon request to assess reliability and admissibility. This ruling was based on social science research indicating that private suggestiveness can undermine eyewitness reliability and inflate confidence, consistent with the judiciary's gatekeeping duty to prevent unreliable evidence from reaching jurors. The matter was remanded for such a hearing, while affirming the conviction in other respects.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defamation and false light lawsuit brought by Too Much Media, LLC and its principals against Shellee Hale for comments she posted on an online message board about their software used in the adult entertainment industry. Hale claimed protection under New Jersey’s Shield Law as a self-described journalist investigating corruption in the industry. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Shield Law does not apply to individuals posting comments on Internet message boards, as these forums are not similar to traditional news sources like newspapers or magazines. The court reasoned that while the law offers broad protection to the news media, extending it to unfiltered message board posts would go beyond the Legislature's intent, and affirmed the denial of the privilege while providing guidance for future applications.

free speechtorts & liability

In State v. Miller, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts including robbery, burglary, and weapons offenses stemming from an armed robbery of construction workers, and he appealed on grounds including the trial court's decision to allow the jury to view video-recorded testimony of a victim during deliberations, jury instructions regarding the defendant's decision not to testify, and the imposition of consecutive sentences. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the video playback procedure in open court was proper and consistent with guidelines for handling such requests in cases without a court reporter, that the jury instructions did not violate the defendant's rights, and that the conviction should stand. However, the court remanded the case for resentencing because the trial court failed to adequately address the Yarbough factors when deciding on consecutive sentences for the two robbery counts. The core reasoning emphasized adapting court procedures to technological changes while ensuring fairness, and the need for clear sentencing analysis to allow proper appellate review.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the validity of a warrantless arrest of defendant Daniel Brown and the admissibility of his subsequent incriminating statements to police after he was advised of his Miranda rights. Brown was implicated in a series of armed robberies and car thefts by statements from co-defendants, leading police to prepare complaints but without obtaining judicial authorization for arrest warrants before proceeding to his girlfriend's apartment. When officers knocked, Brown fled out a window onto an adjacent public roof, resulting in a standoff and his arrest; the trial court denied his motion to suppress the statements, and the Appellate Division affirmed on attenuation grounds. The court affirmed on different grounds, holding that the arrest was lawful because police had probable cause from the co-defendants' statements, Brown had fled to a public area where no warrant was required, and his observed resistance provided independent grounds for arrest, rendering the defective warrants irrelevant and the statements admissible.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. J.G., the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant's private conversation with a pastor, in which the defendant discussed allegations of sexually abusing his daughters, qualified for protection under the state's cleric-penitent privilege. The trial court had suppressed the statements as privileged, but the Appellate Division reversed that ruling. The Court held that the privilege applies when, under the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable penitent would believe the communication was made in confidence to a cleric acting in a spiritual-advisory role. Applying this standard to the facts, including the defendant's request for counseling and the private setting, the Court concluded the privilege protected the statements and therefore reversed the Appellate Division's decision, remanding for further proceedings.

criminal lawreligious liberty

In State v. McCabe, the defendant was charged in municipal court with driving while intoxicated and related offenses, and his attorney moved to recuse the part-time municipal judge because the judge and defense counsel were opposing attorneys in a separate, still-pending probate matter that had been inactive for two years. The municipal court denied the recusal motion, finding no actual prejudice, and the Superior Court affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, ruling that part-time municipal judges must recuse themselves when they and a party's lawyer are adversaries in any other open case. The court reasoned that judges must avoid not only actual conflicts but also the appearance of impropriety to preserve public confidence in judicial impartiality, consistent with its prior decision in DeNike v. Cupo, and remanded the matter for proceedings before a different judge.

procedurecriminal law

This case concerned a criminal defendant charged with aggravated sexual assault and related offenses who was an undocumented immigrant. After initial bail was set at $75,000 and posted, federal ICE authorities lodged a detainer, prompting the prosecutor to seek an increase to $300,000 on grounds that removal proceedings created a greater risk of nonappearance at trial. The trial court granted the increase as a response to changed circumstances, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the possibility of detention was foreseeable from the outset and did not justify modification. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, ruling that the actual lodging of the detainer constituted a material change in circumstances that reasonably supported higher bail to ensure the defendant's presence, and it reinstated the $300,000 amount while advising prosecutors to seek modifications promptly upon a detainer's filing rather than after bond is posted.

immigrationcriminal lawfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a dispute between the Mount Holly Township Board of Education and the Mount Holly Township Education Association over the termination of custodian Juan Gonzalez. Gonzalez was fired mid-contract under the terms of his individual employment agreement, which allowed termination with fourteen days' notice, rather than under the collectively negotiated agreement (CNA) that required just cause for discharge and provided for a grievance process culminating in arbitration. The Association sought arbitration on Gonzalez's behalf, but the trial court and appellate court permanently restrained it. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that when an individual contract conflicts with and diminishes rights under a CNA, the individual contract must yield to the collective agreement. The Court remanded the matter for arbitration, consistent with the statutory policy favoring arbitration of grievances.

labor & employment

In Burnett v. County of Bergen, the plaintiff sought bulk copies of about eight million pages of land title records spanning 22 years from the Bergen County Clerk's Office under New Jersey's Open Public Records Act (OPRA) to compile and sell them in a commercial searchable database; the records included names, addresses, signatures, and social security numbers. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the records must be disclosed after redaction of social security numbers, with the requestor bearing the redaction costs. The core reasoning centered on balancing OPRA's goals of ready public access to government records and protection of personal privacy, noting that the bulk request for unnecessary social security numbers heightened identity theft risks and did not advance core governmental transparency interests.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved defendant A.O., who was charged with sexually assaulting his girlfriend's ten-year-old daughter and convicted after polygraph results obtained without counsel were admitted at trial under a stipulation he signed waiving objections to the evidence. The court held that polygraph evidence based on stipulations entered without the assistance of counsel is inadmissible, exercising its supervisory authority to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. It reasoned that such broad waivers of trial rights without a lawyer undermine the integrity of the criminal process, given ongoing concerns about polygraph reliability. The court also modified its prior ruling in State v. Guenther to allow impeachment of a victim-witness using false allegations made after the underlying accusation and directed a hearing on remand to evaluate that evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Slater, the defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute after a warrantless search of a motel room uncovered drugs and related items, but then moved before sentencing to withdraw the plea, asserting he had no control over the drugs. The trial court denied the motion, finding the plea knowing and voluntary with no colorable claim of innocence, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that pre-sentence withdrawal motions are evaluated by balancing four factors: whether the defendant asserted a colorable claim of innocence, the nature and strength of reasons for withdrawal, the existence of a plea bargain, and prejudice to the State. Applying those factors, the Court concluded that Slater met his burden because his innocence claim had support in the record, prejudice to the State was minimal, and withdrawal was in the interests of justice under Rule 3:9-3(e).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a business dispute between the two members of a mortgage brokerage company, with the plaintiff seeking to buy out the defendant's interest following a falling-out; after a bench trial and post-trial motions, the trial court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant approximately $493,000. While the matter was still pending, the plaintiff's attorney approached the trial judge about possible post-retirement employment with his firm, leading to preliminary negotiations that violated RPC 1.12(c) by occurring without disclosure or a waiting period. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that these discussions created an appearance of impropriety that undermined public confidence in judicial impartiality, requiring reversal of the Appellate Division and remand for a new trial to eliminate any reasonable doubts about the outcome's fairness.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns two consolidated OPRA lawsuits filed by Hoboken resident Elizabeth Mason against the City of Hoboken and its officials, arising from 17 records requests made between 2003 and 2004 for items such as general ledgers, budgets, and prior OPRA requests. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that OPRA actions in Superior Court are subject to a 45-day statute of limitations consistent with actions in lieu of prerogative writs, and that requestors may recover attorney’s fees under a catalyst theory if they prove the lawsuit caused the agency to release records with some legal basis, with the burden shifting to the agency only if it failed to respond within seven business days. Applying these standards, the Court found Mason was not entitled to fees because her suits were not causally related to the disclosures, as the city had either provided or arranged access before or independently of the litigation. The judgment of the Appellate Division was affirmed as modified.

procedurecivil rights

The case involved a defendant charged with fourth-degree contempt for allegedly violating a restraining order by posting a salacious Craigslist ad about his sister, where the defense claimed two acquaintances had typed and posted the message instead. At trial, after the prosecutor's cross-examination, the judge asked the defendant more than thirty questions over several minutes, which the appellate court found improperly signaled skepticism about the defendant's credibility to the jury. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sentence, holding that while judges may question witnesses to clarify testimony or manage proceedings, they must avoid any appearance of partiality that could influence the jury's assessment of credibility. The court remanded for a new trial, also addressing but finding no error in the prosecutor's limited pre-arrest silence questions under the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a title insurance policy purchased in 1981 by a general partnership for a tract of New Jersey farmland. Ten years later the partnership conveyed the land to a limited partnership controlled by the same individuals, who did not obtain new coverage; when a title defect was later discovered the insured sued the title company for compensation under the original policy. The court held that the policy lapsed upon the voluntary transfer because the limited partnership was a separate legal entity and the conveyance did not occur by operation of law. The policy language continued coverage only while the named insured retained an interest in the land or when succession happened by operation of law, neither of which applied after the intentional transfer to the new entity, so summary judgment for the insurer was proper.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Reid, defendant Shirley Reid was indicted for second-degree computer theft after allegedly accessing a supplier's website from her home computer and altering her employer's password and shipping address; police obtained her identity by serving a deficient municipal subpoena on her ISP, Comcast, using an IP address captured by the website. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that Internet subscribers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their subscriber information held by ISPs under Article I, Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution, comparable to privacy interests in bank or telephone records. The court ruled that law enforcement must use a grand jury subpoena to obtain such information without notice to the subscriber. It affirmed suppression of the subscriber data acquired via the invalid municipal subpoena but allowed the State to reacquire the same information independently through a proper grand jury subpoena.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this case, police stopped a vehicle after confirming the driver's suspended license, ordered the passenger back into the car for safety reasons, verified the passenger's identity and suspended license when he asked for the keys, and then ran his information through the NCIC database, which revealed outstanding warrants leading to his arrest and the discovery of crack cocaine during a search incident to arrest. The court held that the passenger was seized under the federal and state constitutions at the time of the stop, but that officers do not need reasonable suspicion to access the NCIC database and that the check was within the scope of the traffic stop without unreasonably prolonging it. As a result, the court reversed the Appellate Division's decision to suppress the evidence, vacated the reversal of the conviction, and reinstated the defendant's guilty plea and sentence for drug possession charges. The core reasoning centered on the limited nature of the database query and its consistency with constitutional limits on seizures during lawful traffic stops.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case concerned a defendant charged with armed robbery and related offenses who was tried and convicted in absentia after failing to appear for trial. Although the trial court had been informed that the defendant was incarcerated in New York at the time, it did not conduct an inquiry into whether his absence was voluntary before proceeding. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that without such an inquiry it was not possible to conclude that the defendant knowingly waived his constitutional right to be present. The Court also provided guidance on limiting hearsay testimony at retrial but did not reach whether the prior admission of such evidence was harmless error.

criminal lawprocedure