Burglary Punishment Must Fit Crime Not Criminal

In State v. Nieves, Eric Nieves was charged in 4 residential burglaries and related crimes. The jury found him guilty of four burglaries (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2); three thefts (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3); dealing in stolen property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7.1b); receiving stolen property (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7) and conspiracy with codefendants (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, :18-2, :20-7.1). Nieves was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment with 150 months of parole ineligibility. On appeal, the appellate division affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and returned to the court below for resentencing based on the factors set forth in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985). On appeal, Nieves objected to the jury instructions regarding certain lesser included offenses and complicity. Pursuant to State v. Singleton, 211, N.J. 157, 182 (2012), "if the defendant did not object to the charge when given, there is a presumption the charge was not error and unlikely to prejudice defendant's case." Prior to instructing the jury, the judge advised the attorneys of the intended charges and defense counsel gave his assent to both charging decisions. Defendant then bears the burden of showing plain error having a clear capacity of producing and unjust result R. 2:10-2 and the burden was not met. The Appellate Division found defendant's claim of error in the jury instruction on accomplice liability to have insufficient merit and affirmed all convictions. With regard to the custodial sentence, the defendant was sentenced on each of the 10 third degree crimes and received an aggregate sentence of 25 years with 12 1/2 years of parole ineligibility. Defendant did not deny his lengthy criminal history and was aware he qualified as a persistent offender but Nieves argued that the courts extensive reliance on his criminal history was inappropriate. In Yarbough, the court set forth the fact that "punishment should fit the crime, not the criminal, and that there should be a predictable degree of uniformity in sentencing." 100 N.J. at 630. State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109 (2011) the New Jersey Supreme Court enumerated the Yarbough factors as modified by statute and offered guidance for appellate review of consecutive sentences. The Appellate Division found the discussion of Yarbough factors by the court below to be too cursory to permit adequate review. Further, any conspiracy conviction must be merged with the underlying completed crime. Burglary charges are not often lightly sentenced as they involve the possibility of great physical harm when the intruder and the owner or dweller accidentally meet and both act in fear. If you are facing burglary charges, you should seek experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about burglary, theft, robbery or other serious criminal charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Legalizing Marijuana in NJ?

A bill, A-2842, legalizing possession of less than 50 grams of marijuana for any purpose is moving toward legalization in NJ at this time. Presently N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10 criminalizes the possession, use or being under the influence or failure to make lawful disposition of marijuana. N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4) currently reads: "Possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana, including any adulterants or dilutants, or five grams or less a disorderly person." The penalty is up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1000, or both. Assemblymen Michael Patrick Carroll, R- Morris, and Reed Guscoria, D-Mercer introduced this legislation after seeing the weight of the public sentiment moving toward legalization of marijuana use. The New Jersey State Municipal Prosecutors Association also supports the legalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal use as court dockets are overburdened with marijuana possession charges. Police personnel also find themselves spending copious amounts of time dealing with cases involving these small quantities of marijuana for personal use. Although the bill decriminalizes possession of small quantities as well as being under the influence, operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence would remain illegal. Although many are behind this referendum, there are opponents who believe it will be problematic. One person opposed to legalizing marijuana is Governor Chris Christie who has vowed that such changes to the law "will not happen on my watch ever." For the time being, possession, use or being under the influence of marijuana remains illegal in New Jersey. If you are charged with these or any other crimes under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10, you can face serious consequences including imprisonment, loss of license, large fines and the stigma of a criminal charge on your record. You should seek experienced legal counsel immediately. For more information about use, possession or being under the influence of marijuana, CDS in a motor vehicle, DUI or other drug charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Dilapidated Does Not Mean Abandoned In Warrantless Search

The NJ Supreme Court recently decided State v. Brown, a case in which a warrantless search undertaken by police uncovered a gun, drugs and drug paraphernalia within a residence. After receiving information from two confidential witnesses and a concerned citizen, police conducted surveillance on two non-consecutive days at a run-down residence with the electric meter removed, broken windows, a padlock on the front door, the rear door off the hinges but propped close from the inside and the inside littered with trash. Trooper Kurt Kennedy received information that one of the defendants had a sawed-off shotgun in the residence, was stashing controlled dangerous substances (CDS) inside for distribution and possessed a key he utilized to enter. Kennedy observed, on four separate occasions during one day, individuals approach one of the defendants and provide him with cash and then watched him walk up to the residence, unlock the door, enter and quickly exit the residence and provide the purchasers with suspected CDS. On a second day, Trooper Kennedy observed 14 such transactions. NJ State Troopers arrested four defendants after observing what they considered to be drug activity within an abandoned house within which the defendants were trespassing. Kennedy and the other Troopers made conclusions based on the area being known for crime and general knowledge obtained from being assigned to the area. There were no exigent circumstances apparent, the troopers did not take the time to review the property's deed, tax records, utility records and the like. However, Kennedy did look up Strong, the defendant with the key, and found him listed as residing nearby. Strong also had prior drug convictions. The Troopers also observed similar activity at another residence nearby but did not undertake a warrantless entry of that home as they recognized it to be occupied. Upon obtaining evidence from the warrantless search of the first residence, the police used the "fruit of the poisonous tree" to secure a warrant for the residence they recognized as inhabited. The NJ Supreme Court, in State v. Brown, set forth the presumptiveness against warrantless searches as the backdrop for their review. State v. Johnson, 193 N.J. 528 (2008), State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007). The state bears the burden of proving a warrantless search falls within one of several well delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Pineiro, 181 N.J. 13 (2004). If the property was truly abandoned, the defendant could not have a possessory interest and therefore no expectation of privacy in the property. The fact that police obtained a key, from one of the defendants, to the padlock on the front door prior to conducting the warrantless search should have indicated that the defendants were exercising control over the property to some degree and alerted them that a warrant was required prior to entry. Under State v. Linton, 356 N.J. Super. 255 (App. Div. 2002) the state would have to show a reasonable belief the house was abandoned and no expectation of privacy could have existed in order to justify the warrantless entry. Before holding the that the state failed to meet its burden of proof due to the NJ State Police failure to determine the property was abandoned or the defendants were trespassers, the court also stated the contrary premise that the police do not need a warrant when observing a stranger inside a structure with a broken front door lock and a door wide open. Clearly the warrant requirement is subject to broad interpretation as it would be difficult to know who is a stranger or an owner in every house in every community and, from the court's example, there is a distinction between doors off hinges and doors wide open with broken locks. The difference between having a search upheld or suppressing evidence obtained from a search rests on small legal distinctions. If the police obtained evidence against you in what you believed to be an illegal search, it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to defend you against the prosecution. For more information about warrantless search, search and seizure, drugs, weapons or other criminal issues in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

Attack On NJ Gun Law Will Not Be Heard By US Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will not hear an NRA backed Second Amendment challenge to NJ's "justifiable need" requirement to carry a handgun outside of a personal residence. New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4) affords substantial discretion to judges and law enforcement personnel in determining who may carry handguns in public. On the heels of District of Columbia v. Heller, 544 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), there have been numerous challenges to gun restrictions within various states. Heller struck down the outright ban on handgun ownership in Washington D.C. and McDonald held that the Second Amendment protection used to strike down the D.C. ban in Heller applies to the various states. The NJ challengers were 4 individuals denied carry permits and 2 gun rights groups with several amici, including the NRA, on either side of the issue. The plaintiffs contended that the Second Amendment right to bear arms includes the right to protect oneself outside, not only inside, one's residence. Further they argued that the law's "justifiable need" standard of deciding who is fit to carry a gun and who is not affords broad discretion in law enforcement and judges to select which individuals will and will not be able to exercise their Constitutional rights. The "justifiable need" standard under the NJ Handgun Permit Law requires an applicant for a carry permit to obtain positive character references from 3 individuals of good reputation who have known the applicant for at least 3 years and then obtain approval from their local police chief. Once the application is complete, individuals seeking a carry permit must undergo background checks regarding criminal and mental history and fingerprinting. Next they must demonstrate their ability to safely handle a handgun and lastly is the highly ambiguous showing of "justifiable need" to carry a handgun. This information is all complied and a permit is issued by a Superior Court Judge only if all criteria are satisfactorily met. Without a doubt there will be further challenges to the NJ Handgun Permit Law as some argue that citizens need guns for protection while others argue that if no one has guns they cannot be used for violence. If you have a justifiable need to carry a handgun and have been denied the right to a carry permit after meeting all criteria to obtain one you should seek an experienced attorney to assist you in your matter. If you are caught illegally carrying firearms the penalties can be severe making it well worth the effort to seek a permit to carry legally. For more information about gun or weapon possession, possession of weapons during a drug related offense, armed robbery, possession of a handgun without a permit, use or possession of a gun in the commission of a crime, illegal weapons, unlawful possession of a weapon or possession of a weapon while on parole or probation visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

NJ Bill Limiting Drone Use By Law Enforcement Vetoed By Governor

NJ S-2702 (A-4037), limiting use of unmanned aerial drones by law enforcement in criminal prosecution, passed the House and Senate then was "pocket vetoed" by the Governor. The bill, as proposed, would limit the ability of law enforcement to use drones in conducting surveillance, evidence gathering or for other police purposes without a warrant, consent of the subject of the investigation or exigent circumstances. Surveillance video or communication could not be used for evidentiary purposes unless related to an ongoing criminal investigation. Any information obtained would also have been precluded from use in establishing reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The bill made it a 4th degree crime to send up an armed drone, including punishment of up to 18 months in prison and a $10,000 fine. As it stands, unmanned drones are being utilized to monitor the actions of NJ citizens. In the event criminal activity is picked up by the drones, it is open season for law enforcement to utilize all information found. For information regarding criminal matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com.

GPS Satellite Monitoring Of Sex-Offenders Retroactive?

NJ awaits the decision of the NJ Supreme Court on whether a state statute requiring GPS monitoring of sex-offenders will have retroactive application to those already released from jail. The main decision point is whether the 2007 Sex Offender Monitoring Act (SOMA) (N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.89 to 123.95) is intended to punish sex offenders, triggering the United States Constitution's ex post facto clause, or it is intended to rehabilitate offenders and protect the public. Riley was originally found guilty of attempted sexual assault committed in 1986 and sentenced to an extended term of 20 years in prison to run consecutive to a sentence he was already serving for a violation of parole. Riley v. State Parole Board began when, upon release from prison in 2009, he was informed by the Parole Board that, as a classified Tier III sex-offender under Megan's Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to 19) with a high risk of re-offense (N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.91(a)(1)), he would be subject to constant GPS monitoring via an ankle bracelet. When wearing the ankle bracelet, a previously convicted sex-offender can move about freely as if without the bracelet, however, "big brother" is constantly watching. This can be likened to parole which is a form of punishment within the criminal justice system. The state's argument is that this form of monitoring is no more restrictive than carrying a cellular phone, with the presumptive reference being the ability to view the location of a cell phone at any time via GPS devices. Certainly there are differences, notably an individual may put their cell phone down anywhere any time and is not tethered to the phone constantly as well as the fact that, although possible, and even legal under certain circumstances, there is not an expectation that police are constantly tracking you by your cell phone. Additionally, although one may leave a cell phone on a charger and go elsewhere while it charges, a convicted sex-offender subject to GPS monitoring must charge the bracelet daily by remaining tethered to an electrical outlet for 2 hours. In Riley, the lower court held that the law is punitive and therefore not retroactively applicable. Upon appeal by the state, the NJ Appellate Division struck down retroactive application of a similar GPS monitoring law as unconstitutional in keeping with Commonwealth v. Cory, 911 N.E.2d 187 (Mass. 2009) and parting with the holdings in Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) and Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) holding sex-offender notification requirements as non-punitive. Commission of a sexual offense can be discovered many years after the incident or incident and can result in incarceration, substantial and irreparable damage to the reputation and lifestyle of the accused in addition to the deprivation of liberty and rights, registration as a sex offender, loss of employment opportunities, possibility of civil commitment and social stigma. If you are accused of a sex crime it is absolutely imperative that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to begin working on your defense immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, internet crimes, child pornography or other sex crimes in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

Conspiracy to Murder, Assault, Weapons Possession and Conspiracy to Distribute Drugs Overturned Due to Juror Altercation

In State v. Dorsainvil, a conviction for first-degree conspiracy to commit murder, second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b) and first-degree attempted murder, second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4), second-degree possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug-related offense (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1), third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b) and third-degree conspiracy to distribute cocaine and/or heroin was overturned as a result of an altercation between jurors during deliberations. Following the guilty finding, the defendant moved for a mistrial and the trial court denied the motion. Almost contemporaneously with the jury's announcement of a deadlock, a physical altercation between at least 2 and possibly 3 jurors occurred. The violence was severe enough to prompt the other jurors to summon a Sheriff's officer for safety. Thereafter, a guilty verdict was then rendered creating the reasonable inference that the physical altercation in some way influenced the jurors in order to break the deadlock. The NJ Appellate Division found that physical altercations between jurors was likely to result in undue influence contaminating the verdict. If you are facing charges of murder, assault, attempt, conspiracy, possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, distribution or possession with intent to distribute drugs, 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, assault, attempt, conspiracy, possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, distribution or possession with intent to distribute drugs in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.