Judge's Finding Against Civil Commitment Of A Sex-Offender Is Reversed

C.H. is a rapist with a history of sex crime convictions for acts committed from 1978 through 2005 against women ages 17 to 36. C.H. also has a history of convictions for drug offenses, robbery, receiving stolen property and theft, parole violations and failure to register as a sex offender. As a result of his previous post-release behaviors and prior pleas and guilty verdicts including sexual assault, attempted criminal sexual contact, terroristic threats, assault, criminal sexual assault, criminal restraint, criminal attempt and rape the State petitioned, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, for the civil commitment of C.H. pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA)(N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38) upon his scheduled release from the Special Treatment Unit (STU). In May 2012, two State psychiatrists both found that C.H. fit the criteria for civil commitment under the SVPA due to his inability to control his own sexually violent behavior, likelihood of reoffending and danger to the public as set forth in In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2009) and In re Civil Commitment of A.H.B., 386 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2006). The State’s burden of proof in seeking civil commitment is clear and convincing evidence pursuant to In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599 (App. Div. 2003). During a commitment hearing, C.H.’s psychiatrist contended that C.H. was not “highly likely” to reoffend if released. Although the judge held that C.H. suffered from paraphilia, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and polysubstance abuse and there was a risk that C.H. would reoffend, the judge held that the State had not met its burden of proof. In re the Civil Commitment of C.H. resulted in the State’s appeal of the judge’s finding with regard to C.H.’s likelihood of reoffending. Pursuant to In re Civil Commitment of T.J.N., 390 N.J. Super. 218, 225 (App. Div. 2007) a trial court’s order of commitment under the SVPA will be reversed only for “an abuse of discretion or lack of evidence to support it.” Under In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996) the record must be reviewed to determine whether the judge’s decision reflected the evidence presented and findings set forth by the experts for both sides collectively where the factfinder would not have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision without reference to expert opinions. Reasoning that the judge’s failure to find a risk of re-offense in light of evidence and expert opinions presented was a “mistaken exercise in discretion” the N.J. Appellate Division reversed the matter with direction to the trial judge to more fully review the record with regard to the issues presented at future review hearings regarding the commitment of C.H. If you are facing sex crime charges the consequences are severe including potential registry as a sex-offender under Megan's Law, the stigma associated with sexual assault perpetrators, prison and possibly civil commitment. If you are charged with a sex crime, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, internet crimes, solicitation of a minor, endangering the welfare of a minor or other sex crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

No Suppression Of Handguns Shown In Video

Ronald Payne was convicted in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County for two counts of second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)), third-degree receiving stolen property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7) and third-degree resisting arrest (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(3)(a)) after police received a report of a man in possession with a gun in Belleville, NJ. Upon arriving in the area, police saw the defendant run to a car which sped away as soon as the defendant got in. As police chased the vehicle, Payne pointed a gun at the officers and his actions were recorded by the cruiser's dash camera. Police ultimately stopped the vehicle and, upon removing the defendant, saw two handguns in plain view on the vehicle's back seat. In State v. Payne, the defendant sought suppression of the weapons discovered, however, the Superior Court judge viewed the patrol car's video and declined to hold a suppression hearing. The defendant pled guilty and was sentenced to 5 years in prison with a 3 year parole ineligibility period under the Graves Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c)). The defendant appealed the denial of his suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing and the court's failure to award him appropriate jail credits at sentencing as a result of a parole violation. The NJ Appellate Division found that the defendant's appeal of the suppression motion was without significant merit as the video showed enough to see the handguns in plain view and leave no material facts in dispute, under State v. Hewins, 166 N.J. Super. 210 (1979), with regard to the handguns. The Appellate Division did remand the matter to the trial court to determine whether the 720 jail credit awarded to the defendant was appropriate or whether he was entitled to additional jail credits. Second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm or handgun carries up to 10 years in prison with a mandatory parole ineligibility period under the Graves Act. If you are facing weapons charges, you should seek experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about weapons possession, use or possession of a gun in the commission of a crime, possession of a handgun without a permit, weapons possession while on probation or parole, illegal weapons or other serious charges in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Acquittal Of Burglary And Arson But 6-year Sentence For CDS

Michael Naples was indicted for second-degree aggravated arson (N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(a)), third-degree arson (N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b)(2)), third-degree burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1)) and possession of drugs (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)). Following a fire, surveillance video revealed Naples riding his bicycle past a vacant building into a parking lot then showed the defendant in the lot again shortly after the fire began. Detectives had seen Naples in the past and quickly located him for questioning. During the conversation, the defendant admitted to having a crack pipe, which he provided to officers, and was also found to have a gas cap in his possession. He denied any knowledge of the fire but smelled of gasoline according to the detectives. His motion to suppress the evidence was denied and the jury acquitted Naples of arson and burglary and found him guilty only of the cocaine possession. He was sentence to a discretionary extended 6-year term in prison with a 3-year period of parole ineligibility. In State v. Naples, the NJ Appellate Court heard the defendant's arguments against the trial court's denial of the suppression motion and the extended sentence imposed for the minute amount of drugs. As to the suppression motion, the Appellate Division quoted State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13, 21 (2004) in holding that based on the "facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search warrant[ed] a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate." With regard to the sentence imposed, the Appellate Division found a "clear showing of abuse of discretion", pursuant to State v. Whitaker, 79 N.J. 503, 512 (1979) on the part of the trial court. Although the prosecution moved for an extended sentence under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a) applicable to persistent offenders as Naples was over 21 years old, previously convicted on at least 2 separate occasions of 2 separate crimes committed at different times after attaining the age of 18 years old and 10 years had not passed since the commission of his last release from confinement the Appellate Division held that being a persistent offender is only part of the consideration in sentencing to an extended term under State v. Dunbar, 108 N.J. 80 (1987). In Dunbar, the court held that the court must also determine whether an extended sentence is appropriate to protect the public under State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 164-65 (2006), weigh aggravating and mitigating factors and determine whether to impose a parole ineligibility period. The Appellate Division determined that the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings and gave too much weight to the controlled dangerous substance (CDS) found in Naples possession. The matter was reversed and remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of the appropriate criteria and Naples criminal history. Drug charges often heavily sentenced and, if found guilty, you risk incarceration, loss of driver's license and substantial fine. If you are facing drug charges, you should seek experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about burglary, drug charges, CDS, theft, robbery or other serious criminal charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sexual Assault Remanded For Consideration Of Mitigating Factors

V.E.A. was indicted for second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)) and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)) and was convicted on both counts following a jury trial. The charges stemmed from the accusations of his daughter that she awoke one evening to find the Defendant’s hand inside her shorts and panties on her buttocks after falling asleep on his bed while they were watching a movie. The child testified that he then began to move his hand around toward the front of her body and upward toward her breast at which time she asked to go to the bathroom. The Defendant excused her to go to the bathroom and did not continue the behavior according to his daughter. At sentencing, V.E.A. received a 7 year prison sentence with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA) (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2) for sexual assault and a concurrent 7 year prison sentence for the second count of the indictment. In State v. V.E.A. the NJ Appellate Division heard V.E.A.’s arguments with regard to aggravating and mitigating factors and the disparity in the trial court judge’s findings with regard to same. The NJ Appellate Division found that where the judge stated at sentencing that she found no mitigating factors to exist but in the Judgment of Conviction indicated mitigating factor 10 (N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(10)) “the defendant is particularly likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment” applied and was accorded substantial weight by the trial judge such conflicted existed as to warrant the remand of the matter for resentencing with appropriate review of the aggravating and mitigating factors. If you are charged with a sex crime you are subject to incarceration, registration as a sex offender and the accompanying stigma which will affect where you may live, where you may work and how others will treat you and possibly even civil commitment. It is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to assist you with these charges. For more information about rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, sexual assault, criminal sexual contact and other sex crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Stay Of Suspension During DUI Appeals Becomes Unlikely

As a result of State v. Robinson, judges have been warned about the stay of license suspensions pending appeal in driving under the influence (DUI) cases. Brian Robertson was convicted of driving while intoxicated as a result of the officers observations and his Alcotest reading of .13% blood alcohol content (BAC) after Robertson provided breath samples. In an effort to eliminate the Alcotest results, the defendant sought records with regard to repairs and diagnostic tests with regard to the specific Alcotest machine used. The records were not provided and the defendant appealed. Both the municipal court judge and the state court judge stayed the sentence of 7 month license suspension pending appeal. The NJ Appellate Division affirmed the conviction as some of the records sought had been deleted in good faith and others would not sway the court from convicting the defendant based on the officers observations and totality of the circumstances. The most problematic issue with this case for the Appellate Division was the stays of sentence permitted without findings as to the factors set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982). The factors include the result of irreparable harm to the defendant if temporary relief is not afforded, whether any substantial issue remains unsettled, whether all material facts are controverted, and the whether a hardship would result to the defendant in the event the defendant's license suspension was not stayed. Neither the municipal court judge nor law division judge made findings with regard to defendant's driving or substance abuse history or any harms, such as loss of employment, he could have sustained as a result of the sentence imposed. As a result of the need to protect the public from the possibility of defendant's re-offending during the appellate process, judges are cautioned that stays pending appeal are not to be utilized "without giving good reason for it." A conviction for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence in NJ has serious and lasting effects including the obvious loss of license as well as ramifications in later civil or criminal suits for wrongful death, damages and the like. A DUI, even if a first, can result in lengthy suspensions, fines and even jeopardize your ability to obtain certain professional licenses or other jobs. If you are charged with DUI in NJ, you should contact an experienced driving under the influence defense attorney to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, drug DUI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving or other serious motor vehicle charges in New Jersey visit www.HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Reversal of Manslaughter Conviction After Jury Accesses Taped Statement

Matthew Craddock was convicted of first-degree aggravated manslaughter (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1)), as a lesser included offense of murder charges, for the stabbing death of James Grace, who was dating Craddock's ex-girlfriend, M.P. He was also convicted of third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d)) and fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d)). At trial, in addition to other evidence presented, the jury heard the defendant's entire taped confession to the police as well as a voicemail the defendant left on his girlfriend's phone after the incident. Testimony for the State was also provided by M.P., her friend L.A., and L.A.'s fiance' Mi.P who all witnessed the altercation between Craddock and Grace. None actually witnessed the actual stabbing but they did hear Grace yell "he stabbed me" and one saw the defendant throw an object that appeared to be a knife handle into the road. The defendant offered a different version of the facts than the others and claimed his actions were in self-defense as an altercation erupted when he was attempting to retrieve M.P.'s cell phone from another individual, Grace, who the defendant believed had stolen the phone. Craddock was sentenced to an aggregate 24-year term with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (NERA)(N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). Craddock appealed based on the admission of the taped statements without redaction under claim that certain information in the recordings was more prejudicial than probative. In State v. Craddock, the NJ Appellate Division considered the holding in State v. Burr, 195 N.J. 119 (2008) wherein it was determined that allowing a jury full access to a videotaped statement had the potential for great prejudice. In State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109 (2011) the court held that the review, by the jury, of taped statements should be undertaken in court where parties are present and judges my provide jury instructions with regard to portions replayed. Finally, in State v. A.R., 213 N.J. 542 (2013) the court held that the jury should not have unfettered access to audio or videotaped statements during deliberations. Once the appellate division determined that the trial court erred in providing the jury with unfettered access to the taped statements, it was further determined that the potential prejudice to the defendant from the jury's access to the statements was not harmless error and the conviction was reversed with the matter remanded to the trial court for a new trial. If you are facing charges of murder, manslaughter or weapons charges, you are facing severe penalties including as much as life in prison. When confronting criminal charges, it is imperative that you have experienced criminal defense counsel at your side to ensure you are afforded due process and your rights are protected. For more information about murder, manslaughter, weapons offenses or other serious crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sex Assault Conviction Overturned Due To Police Officer's Prejudicial Testimony

E.S. was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)); second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 14-2(b)); and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)) based on allegations by his stepdaughter S.W. S.W. was born in 1996 and her mother, N.S, married E.S. in 1998. E.S. and N.S. had children of their own. Living conditions in the family home were beyond crowded and the parents and five children, including S.W., all slept in one bedroom. S.W. complained to her mother in 2008 about multiple touchings by E.S. and when nothing changed, S.W. complained to Aziza Hassan, her teacher. During the interaction with Hassan, S.W. began sobbing in the early morning before school began after Hassan found S.W. waiting in the classroom. Hassan asked S.W. what the problem was and, after S.W. indicated there were problems at home, Hassan asked S.W. if she was raped. Once S.W. indicated to Hassan that S.W. had been raped, Hassan notified the police, DYFS and school authorities. E.S. was arrested after an investigation and sentenced to 12 years in prison with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (N.E.R.A.)(N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2) and a concurrent 6 year term also subject to NERA. In State v. E.S., E.S. appealed based on multiple issues which the court found did not prejudice his rights. The N.J. Appellate Division held that one of the issues raised on appeal by E.S. was valid and had substantial probability of prejudicing the jury. Detective Jennifer Novak of the South River Police Department made multiple statements at trial, in the jury's presence, which supported the credibility of S.W. In particular, Novak indicated her belief of S.W.'s statements and implied that the investigation revealed evidence that the crimes had occurred. Even after the admonishment of the trial judge, Novak continued to make implications about the veracity of S.W. and guilt of E.S. The N.J. Appellate Division heavily weighed the matter of Novak's testimony and sighted to multiple prior decisions regarding the matter. State v. J.Q., 252 N.J. Super. 11 (App. Div. 1991) addressed the issue of witness credibility being a question for the jury. State v. Landeros, 20 N.J. 69, (1955) held that police officers may not offer opinions as to the defendant's culpability when testifying as fact witnesses. Novak's implication that notes written by S.W. in response to Hassan's questioning about the word 'rape' included more inculpatory evidence than they did was contrary to State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263 (1973). The N.J. Appellate Division held that the testimony of Novak could have prejudiced the jury against E.S. and reversed the convictions and remanded to the Law Division for a new trial on all three counts of the indictment. If you are accused of sexual assault or other sex crimes in NJ you are facing very serious penalties including civil commitment, prison and lifetime registry as a sex offender. You need experienced legal counsel to defend you against these charges. For more information about sexual assault, rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, solicitation of a minor, internet crimes or other sex crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

No Expungement After Plea In Money Laundering Scheme

R.Z. sought an expungement of convictions of second-degree theft by deception (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4) and second-degree money laundering (N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25) to which he entered guilty pleas. In 2012, the trial court granted the expungement and in 2013 the NJ Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision. The convictions stemmed from ongoing and continuous fraudulent claims to Medicaid from which in excess of $50,000 was received by R.Z.. Pursuant to In re Ross, 400 N.J. Super. 117 (App. Div. 2008), which interpreted New Jersey's expungement statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a)), a requirement for expungement of more than one crime is that the crimes be committed concurrently rather than on separate occasions as expungement is not available to those who have committed prior or subsequent crimes. In the Matter of Expungement petition of R.Z. included an effort by petitioner to utilize provisions of a 2010 amendment to the N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(a) which included a means for early expungement when certain criteria are met including that the public interest warranting an early expungement in certain matters. Pursuant to In re Kollman, 210 N.J. 557 (2012), a petitioner seeking an early expungement must still meet all other requirements of the expungement statute. The NJ Appellate Division affirmed the denial of R.Z.'s petition for expungement. If you have prior crimes haunting you and would like to expunge them from your record, you should consult with an experienced attorney to determine your eligibility prior to filing a petition for expungement. For more information about expungement, theft, drug crimes, disorderly persons offenses, or other criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.