Juvenile's Waiver of Miranda Rights Upheld

D.N., was a 16 year old juvenile when charged with offenses that, if committed by an adult would include second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); possession of under 50 grams of marijuana (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(4)); defiant trespass (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3(b)) and obstructing the administration of law (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a)). Police responded to a caller saying that D.N. entered a grocery store after being notified he was not permitted to do so and, during a search, located and seized suspected marijuana from D.N.’s person. In the presence of his mother, at the police station, D.N. was read his Miranda rights and invoked his right to remain silent. Weeks later, D.N.’s mother contacted police and advised them that she had found a handgun in a backpack in her residence and, upon their arrival, consented to a search of the backpack. D.N. was taken for questioning upon returning home. The “Juvenile Miranda Warning” form was used to advise D.N. and his mother of D.N.’s rights under Miranda and D.N. and D.N. agreed to speak to the police. D.N. ultimately confessed to that he had made a deal with a gang member wherein he would be paid to deliver the gun to a third party. D.N. moved to suppress the confession and the judge held that D.N. knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights as he had exercised those rights only weeks earlier. In State of New Jersey in the interest of D.N., D.N. pled guilty to second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, possession of under 50 grams of marijuana, defiant trespass, and obstructing the administration of law and, pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed the weapons charges. D.N. was sentenced to 2 years probation, community service, drug evaluation and participation in a residential treatment program among other conditions. D.N. appealed the denial of his suppression motion. The New Jersey Appellate Division held that the “suspect’s will was not overborne by police conduct” as is the test under State v. Presha, 163 N.J. 304, 313 (2000). Pursuant to State in the Interest of A.S., 203 N.J. 131, 147 (2010), the presence of D.N.’s mother was given considerable weight in favor of voluntariness of the confession as well. In light of prior opinions and the fact that D.N. had knowingly invoked his right to remain silent only weeks prior, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the trial judge. If a juvenile is charged with a crime, the disposition of the charges can change his or her future by prohibiting them from entering certain schools, fields of employment and, in the case of Megan's Law offenses, certain residences or neighborhoods. It is critical for any juvenile charged with a criminal offense to seek an experienced juvenile defense attorney immediately to begin protecting their rights and their future. For more information on juvenile offenses, weapons offenses, possession of marijuana, trespass or other criminal charges in NJ, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Robbery Trial 2 Years After Arrest and Right To Speedy Trial

Antonio Jones was convicted of first-degree robbery (N.J.SA. 2C:15-1) and fourth-degree obstructing the administration of law (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1) in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. Jones was sentenced to an extended term including life without parole with the sentence for obstruction to be served concurrently. Jones appealed based on the denial of his motion to dismiss based on failure of the State to uphold his right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the N.J. Constitution. Jones was arrested in February 2012. In spite of defendant’s repeated requests for the State to provide discovery, the State failed to comply and the matter was delayed. In September 2012, Jones filed a speedy trial motion. In December 2012, the trial judge ordered the State to comply with discovery demands. In February 2013, the state still had not complied and Jones again filed a speedy trial motion. The Superior Court records indicated that the motion was denied in August of 2013 but without reasons set forth. The Superior Court judge merely ordered that no trial would occur until discovery was completed and a trial date was set for February 2014, 2 years after Jones was arrested. As 18 months had already elapsed when the Defendant renewed his speedy trial motion, the N.J. Appellate Division remanded the matter to the Superior Court for a review of Jones’ speedy trial motion under the 4 factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2181, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972). Under Barker, the balancing test, applied in State v. Cahill, 213 N.J. 253 (2013) includes: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason therefor; (3) the defendant must assert his or her right to a speedy trial; and (4) any prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the delay. In Cahill, the N.J. Supreme Court considered 1 year as the amount of time triggering further inquiry under the factors set forth in Barker. First-degree robbery is a very serious charge that carries substantial penalties including up to 20 years in prison. The State has to remain within the confines of the law in collecting evidence, your arrest, and presenting evidence and testimony against you. If you have been charged with robbery it is critical you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to fight for your rights each step of the way. For more information regarding robbery, theft, weapons, distribution and other serious crimes in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

DUI Charges Follow Without Miranda After Accident

John Martens was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) after attempting to walk away from his burning vehicle. A passerby reported a vehicle fire and that the vehicle’s driver was attempting to leave the scene. The vehicle had damage to the driver’s side, flat tires and the airbags had been deployed. Investigating officers found only one person in the area who was swaying as he was walking away from the vehicle. The individual admitted he was the vehicle’s owner and that the vehicle struck the median. While speaking with Martens, officers noted his speech was slurred and eye movements were slow. They administered field sobriety tests (FSTs) and arrested Martens. Later, an Alcotest was administered and Marten’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was determined to be .17%. Martens was charged with DUI, reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96); failure to maintain lanes (39:4-88); and abandoning a vehicle (N.J.S.A. 39:4-56.6). Among other motions, Martens sought to suppress statements to the officers prior to his arrest based on the fact that he was not read his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). The suppression motion was denied and Martens entered a conditional guilty plea to driving under the influence, reserving his right to challenge the denial of the suppression motion on appeal. Martens was sentenced as a 3rd time offender and received a 180 day jail sentence, 10 year suspension of his driving privileges, 1 year ignition interlock requirement, 12 hours in the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center as well as fines and surcharges. In State v. John Martens, the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, denied Martens’ suppression motions, found him guilty based upon his plea in the municipal court and imposed the same sentence as the municipal court. Martens appealed to the N.J. Appellate Division. Miranda warnings must be administered when a custodial interrogation occurs wherein the suspect has been deprived of freedom in a significant way. State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515, 614 (1999). Police need not administer Miranda warnings during routine traffic stops. Berkemer v. McCarthy, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 31 (1984); State v. Ebert, 377 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2005). Martens was asked a limited number of questions and was not subject to the equivalent of an arrest prior to being Mirandized by the officers following the FSTs. The decision of the N.J. Superior Court was affirmed. If you are charged with DUI, you are facing substantial penalties beginning with up to 1 year loss of driving privileges for a first offense up to a maximum of a 10 year loss of driving privileges and 180 days in jail for a third offense. In addition, you face the possibility of losing your job, certain professional licenses and the social stigma that comes with DUI. You need the assistance of an experience defense attorney and should not face these charges without one. For more information about driving while intoxicated, reckless driving, driving while suspended or other serious motor vehicle offenses in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This Blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Bat Used in Assault Suppressed After Illegal Police Search

Kenneth Barbour was arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2)), resulting from an alleged assault on his neighbor. Upon arriving at the scene, police were told by the bloody victim, that his neighbor used a black baseball bat to strike him in the head following a verbal dispute. Police indicated they used a patrol car loudspeaker to command Barbour to exit his residence as he was thought to have outstanding warrants and possibly weapons in his possession. An individual ultimately exited the residence and was arrested approximately 20 feet from the residence. Police, not having a photo of Barbour and unsure he was the man who exited the residence, entered the residence to conduct a search of the premises for others. The trial court denied Barbour's motion to suppress, and other relief requested, holding that the actions of the arresting officers were legitimate as part of a protective sweep of the residence. Following a jury trial, Barbour was convicted of fourth degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d)) and sentenced to 2 years probation. In State v. Barbour, the defendant challenged several aspects of the trial court's decision, including the denial of his motion to suppress the bat alleged to have been used as the weapon in the assault. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I of the New Jersey Constitution guarantee the right to citizens to be free from unreasonable search and seizure unless certain very narrow exceptions apply. State v. Maryland, 167 N.J. 471 (2001). The New Jersey Appellate Division held that a protective sweep must be limited to "areas in a defendant's immediate control." Such a sweep is valid only when there is (1) a legitimate reason for the officers presence in the residence; and (2) officers have a reasonable suspicion that there is a dangerous individual hiding in the area to be swept and that the burden of proving these circumstances existed is on the State. State v. Davila, 203 N.J. 97 (2010). In light of the evidence and testimony presented that the Defendant was outside when arrested and there was no reasonable articulable suspicion that another dangerous individual was inside the residence, the N.J. Appellate Division found the search and seizure to violate the Defendant's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and reversed the denial of the motion to suppress. Assault and attempted assault charges are very serious and bear severe consequences including incarceration, the inability to obtain employment and certain licenses, and social stigma associated with such problems. If you are facing assault charges, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately to insure your rights are protected. For more information about assault, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purposed 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.

No Right To Own Firearms If Determined A Danger To The Public Health, Safety and Welfare

Firearms purchaser identification cards and purchase permits may be denied in the event of danger to the "public health, safety and welfare" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-39(c)(5) of the New Jersey Gun Control Law. In 1998, Z.L. was acquitted of a domestic violence charge. Between 2003 and 2011 the police were called to the residence of Z.L. and his wife on five separate occasions for domestic violence issues. In 2013, Z.L applied for a gun purchase permit and the police chief denied the application in light of the prior history of domestic violence. The matter was tried and a Monmouth County Superior Court Judge determined that the permit should not be granted. On appeal, the N.J. Appellate Division held that Z.L. has demonstrated the propensity to react violently and that the presence of a firearm in such a situation has the potential for great harm and no permit should be issued to him. For more information about gun laws in New Jersey including obtaining a gun permit, possession of illegal weapons, unlawful possession of a weapon, regulations on BB guns and paintball guns and other weapons offenses visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Domestic Violence Charge Leads To More After Audio Recording

Kingkamanu Nantambu was arrested for domestic violence when police responded to a 911 call and his girlfriend, Crystal Aikens, reported he had threatened her with a gun. Nantambu reported that Aikens had threatened him with a knife and required medical treatment for multiple cuts. When a search of his apartment revealed a handgun hidden under a bed, he was also charged with weapons offenses. Finally, Aikens reported that Nantambu offered her money in exchange for more favorable testimony and was charged with bribery of a witness (N.J.S.A.2C:28-5(d)) and witness-tampering (N.J.S.A.2C:28-5(a)). Aikens agreed to allow police to record a telephone conversation between herself and Nantambu. After approximately 8 minutes of the conversation took place another call came in which Aikens took then resumed the call with Nantambu. Shortly after the call with Nantambu was resumed, the recording was cut off. By the time detectives reconnected the recording device, the call ended. In State of New Jersey v. Kinkamau Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390 (2015), Nantambu sought to exclude the recording as unreliable. The New Jersey Superior Court judge hearing the case granted the motion to suppress the recording of two conversations between Aikens and Nantambu. The State appealed. State v. Driver, 38 N.J. 255 (1962), State v. Dye, 60 N.J. 518, 531, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1090, 93 S. Ct. 699, 34 L. Ed. 2d 675 (1972), and State v. Cusmano, 274 N.J. Super. 496, 517 (App. Div. 1994), inform that the omission of a portion of a conversation does not require exclusion of the entire conversation. In Driver, the court established a test for the admissibility of audio recordings which set forth 5 criteria: (1) the device was capable of taking the conversation or statement, (2) its operator was competent, (3) the recording is authentic and correct, (4) no changes, additions or deletions have been made, and (5) in instances of alleged confessions, that the statements were elicited voluntarily and without any inducement. The N.J. Appellate Division held that, under precedent, including the test set forth in Driver, the recording was admissible and reversed the decision of the N.J. Superior Court. Domestic violence is a very serious charge in New Jersey and the need to deter would be abusers has resulted in escalating penalties over time. If you are charged with domestic violence or are seeking a final restraining order against an abuser, you will find yourself in the position of proving or disproving the charges. It is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you in such matters. For more information regarding domestic violence, restraining orders, assault, battery and other criminal law issues in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

In DUI A Stay Of Sentence On Appeal Is Not A Right

Scott Robertson was convicted in municipal court of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50). Robertson was stopped after police observed him to be driving erratically and he admitted to the consumption of alcohol during the motor vehicle stop. Robertson performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and his blood alcohol content (BAC) registered as .13 on the Alcotest machine. He was also charged with failure to maintain a lane (N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(b)), and reckless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-96). At trial, Robertson unsuccessfully challenged the admissibility of the Alcotest results based on the unavailability of repair records and diagnostic tests for the Alcotest machine used for his test. Although Robertson received numerous records, there were service related records within the manufacturer which he could not access to which he believed he was entitled. On appeal, the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed. Once again Robertson appealed, this time to the New Jersey Appellate Division which affirmed the DUI conviction holding that under State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 825, 129 S. Ct. 158, 172 L. Ed. 2d 41 (2008) there was no basis for excluding the Alcotest results. Of note, on each successive appeal, Robertson sought a stay of the suspension of his driving privileges. He was sentenced to 7 months loss of license in municipal court and a stay of his suspension was granted, with no reasons stated on the record, to allow for a trial de novo in the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County. At the trial de novo of State v. Robertson, the New Jersey Superior Court judge found Robertson guilty based on both the DVR of the psychophysical tests and the Alcotest results. The defendant again sought a stay of his license suspension based on multiple cases pending certification in the Supreme Court with regard to the ability of those accused of DUI to obtain repair and service records relating to specific Alcotest machines and the possibility of a favorable outcome for the Defendant. The State objected to the stay based on several unreported Appellate Division opinions supporting the finding that the records sought by the Defendant need not be provided. The stay was granted and addressed by the Appellate Division as being governed by a three-part test under Crowe v. DeGoia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982) requiring a showing that failure to obtain the stay would subject the defendant to irreparable harm, that the defendant has a reasonable chance of success on appeal, and there is not substantial harm created by granting the stay. In the case of DUI, the potential for harm to the public by an intoxicated driver creates a special circumstance for consideration and the Appellate Division found that stay of a suspension in a DUI case was not a matter of right pending appeal. With regard to the suppression motion, the New Jersey Appellate Division looked to precedent interpreting Chun. In State v. Maricic, 417 N.J. Super. 280, 288 (App. Div. 2010), the Appellate Division held that, although twelve foundational documents were required by Chun, that did not serve to limit additional discovery requests with a reasonable basis. The Appellate Division also reviewed State v. Carrero, 428 N.J. Super. 495, 507 (App. Div. 2012) holding that DWI cases are quasi-criminal and subject to a more limited discovery than criminal matters. Pursuant to R. 3:13-3(b)(1)(C) and 7:7-7(b)(4) the State is obligated to produce documents within the prosecutor’s custody or control but the Appellate Division reasoned that, although the Alcotest manufacturer’s documents were not within the State’s control, the Defendant could have subpoenaed them from the manufacturer had he felt they would prove to exculpate him. Ultimately, the Appellate Division found the argument that the diagnostic tests were material to the defense to be unconvincing. DWI charges, whether for alcohol or drugs, are very serious charges and can lead to loss of driving privileges up to 10 years as well as incarceration. Additionally, the newly created statute regarding driving while suspended for multiple DUI offenses guarantees a 6 month jail term. If you are facing charges for DUI it is critical that you obtain experienced defense counsel immediately to determine whether you can win your case. For more information about DUI, DWI, DUID, driving while suspended for DUI, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle, refusal to submit to chemical breath tests, reckless driving or other serious motor vehicle charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Facebook Evidence Can Have Limited Value In Sex Crimes Cases

Tony Browne was found guilty of 12 counts of federal child exploitation offenses including production of child pornography, coercion and enticement of a minor, receipt of child pornography, and transfer of obscene material to a minor with females ranging in age from 12 to 17 years old. Browne created a Facebook profile wherein he pretended to be a female and befriended the girls, ultimately obtaining nude and sexually provocative photos from them. Next, Browne utilized another Facebook account under a fictitious name, Billy Button, to threaten to post the photos unless the minors provided more photos or engaged in sexual activity with him. Additionally, Browne sent images to the minors of his erect penis. In United States of America v. Tony Jefferson Browne, Browne’s appeal was rejected but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did hold that although a preponderance of the evidence showed that Browne did create the messages, there was no way to fully authenticate the records through Facebook’s records custodian. Although the conviction was upheld, the court’s finding was that social media evidence requires authentication which takes into consideration the range of ways in which such information can be manipulated. Sex crime charges can be levied many years after an alleged 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.

Coffee Drinking In NJ - From Keeping You Alert To A Violation?

The same penalties which apply to using a cell phone while driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3, in New Jersey could soon apply to drinking coffee or eating while driving if Assemblymen John Wisniewski of Middlesex County and Nicholas Chiaravalloti of Hudson County, both Democrats, get their way. The revisions would subject drivers to a $200 fine for a first offense, $600 fine for a second offense, with a third or subsequent offense subjecting coffee drinkers to up to $800 in fines and up to 90 day loss of license. The Assemblymen are claiming the bill is intended to prevent distracted driving, not punish would be coffee drinkers, but that theory ignores the reality that the effect is the same for drivers. In support of the bill, some are citing enforcement of seatbelt laws and a significant increase in seatbelt use with a corollary decrease in life threatening crash related injuries. The bill is still in its infancy and, as many believe this to be excessive overreaching on the part of Wisniewski and Chiaravalloti, hopes remain high that this bill will garner little support from those responsible for the stewardship of New Jersey. For more information about motor vehicle offenses including using a hand-held electronic device while driving, driving under the influence (DUI), reckless driving and other traffic offenses visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

No Jury Trials In NJ DUI Cases

The N.J. Supreme Court ruled that in spite of substantially increasing penalties, driving under the influence (N.J.S.A. 39:4-50) is a motor vehicle matter giving defendants no right to a jury trial. In State v. Denelsbeck, decided May 12, 2016, the court reaffirmed its decision from State v. Hamm, 121 N.J. 109 (1990), wherein it was held that the Legislature, although enacting harsh penalties to deter driving while intoxicated, did not classify DUI as a criminal matter. Penalties for a third or subsequent DUI do not include more than 6 months in jail and thus are not of sufficient impact to require a jury according to the court’s reasoning. In support of this logic is the fact that the court has criminalized driving while suspended for DWI by enacting N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26 which requires incarceration for those convicted of multiple offenses. The N.J. Supreme Court did indicate that, if penalties for DUI became more harsh in the future, they could revisit their decision. If you are charged with DUI, you need experienced defense counsel to protect your rights. For more information about DWI, refusal to submit to breath tests, driving while suspended for DUI, driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and other serious driving charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Murder Conviction Reversed For Lack of Passion Provocation Consideration

Fernando Carrero was charged with the first-degree murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), (2)); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)); third-degree possession of a handgun without the requisite permit (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); and third-degree hindering apprehension (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1)). Pretrial hearings led to the admission of the revolver used to murder the victim, Jason Hall; evidence that the Defendant had been abusive and controlling toward his girlfriend; statements by the Defendant to the police; and a statement by the victim to a third party. Carrero was convicted by a jury of all counts and sentenced to life in prison. At trial, testimony was presented indicating the Defendant and Lowenstein were involved in a romantic relationship wherein he became controlling, jealous and paranoid. At one point, after he repeatedy struck her for “lying” when he questioned her about her friends Jason Hall and Hicks, Lowenstein provided Carrero with the answer he wanted which was that Hall had set Carrero up. Hall and Carrero were alone together some time later at Lowenstein’s family residence and Hall began to provoke the Defendant after entering the kitchen to find Carerro and Lowenstein kissing with her hands around Carerro’s waist. Lowenstein left the room to locate her parents and heard a gunshot. She returned to the room to find Hall on the floor and Carrero pointing a gun at Hall. In spite of Lowenstein’s pleas and physical efforts to prevent harm to Hall, Carrero shot Hall in the head. The Defendant’s account was that, after Lowenstein left the room, Hall threatened him and pulled the gun from his waistband. Carrero testified that the original gunshot occurred during the struggle wherein Carrero wrestled the gun from Hall’s hand. Carrero further testified that he did not intend to shoot Hall and never had his finger on the trigger but the gun accidentally went off when Lowenstein attempted to physically prevent him from shooting Hall. Hicks was in the basement below during the incident and claimed to have heard yelling and “thumping” noises and arrived upstairs to see Carrero flee with a gun in his hand. Newark Police later located the Defendant with the murder weapon. Carrero challenged on multiple grounds including the denial of his request for a passion/provocation manslaughter (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(2)) charge to the jury; the admission of hearsay; the gravity of his sentence and the admission of prior-bad-acts he was involved in. The N.J. Appellate Division found that a fair trial requires proper jury charges pursuant to State v. Daniels, 224 N.J. 168 (2016), and that if there is evidence supporting the possibility that a jury could reasonably acquit the Defendant of the original charges but find the Defendant guilty of the lesser included charge then a plenary review of the reason for the denial of the lesser included charge is required under State v. Brent, 137 N.J. 107 (1994). Even when a lesser included charge is inconsistent with the defense’s theory of the case it should be offered as an option for the jury if the evidence at trial supports it. State v. Castagna, 376 N.J. Super. 323, 356 (App. Div. 2005); State v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402 (1990); State v. Taylor; 350 N.J. Super. 20 (App. Div. 2002). In the case of State v. Carrero, a passion/provocation manslaughter charge, defined under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(2) as a homicide which is committed in the heat of passion with reasonable provocation, should have been offered for the jury’s consideration. The four elements required to establish passion/provocation murder are adequate provocation; the provocation and the actions of Defendant had to occur proximately; the Defendant had to actually become impassioned by the provocation of the victim; and the Defendant must not have calmed down prior to acting against the victim. Mauricio, supra, 117 N.J. at 411. Although a passion/provocation charge is inconsistent with the Defendant’s self-defense theory, it is nonetheless an appropriate jury charge under the evidence presented, including that Hall was trying to provoke Carrero immediately before Hall was shot. The N.J. Appellate Division found that the trial court was incorrect in finding that a passion/provocation charge should not be presented because inconsistencies in the charges presented could confuse the jurors. Further, the Appellate panel found there was a rational basis to support the passion/provocation charge as there was evidence presented of threats, a struggle, Lowenstein’s testimony that her hands were around Carrerro’s waist immediately prior to the incident, and the Defendant’s testimony that Hall was the one who had the gun initially. Based on their findings, the Appellate panel reversed and remanded the matter for a new trial rendering the Defendant’s other points on appeal moot. If you are facing murder charges you are looking at a sentence of 30 years to life and even for lesser included offenses the sentence can be the same as life in prison depending on your age at sentencing. When confronting such charges, it is imperative that you have experienced and trusted criminal defense counsel at your side to ensure you have the best chance possible in fighting the case and protecting your rights. For more information about murder, aggravated manslaughter, assault or weapons charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Domestic Violence By Police Officer Found Unfit For Duty

F.M., a police officer, fought against the domestic violence claims of G.M., his wife, and defeated her attempt to obtain a final restraining order against him. However, although the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County, Family Part Judge hearing the matter refused to grant the final restraining order, the State of New Jersey moved to take control of F.M.’s firearms pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) which outlines the guidelines for the purchase of firearms in New Jersey. The Honorable Thomas J. Critchley, Jr. required F.M. to attend certain counseling and intervention programs and undergo a Fitness for Duty evaluation. Upon completion of his court ordered counseling, F.M. sought the return of his weapons in a hearing where substantial testimony with regard to prior incidents of domestic violence at the hands of F.M. was provided by G.M. Judge Critchley, after hearing the testimony of G.M. and the State’s witnesses, denied the State’s motion including in his opinion that F.M. and G.M. had a lengthy history in the Morris County Family Court to which the State’s expert psychologists were not privy yet the judges within the court were well acquainted. The N.J. Appellate Division affirmed Judge Critchley’s ruling with regard to the return of F.M.’s firearms. The N.J. Supreme Court granted certification and, In The Matter of Applications Of State of New Jersey For Forfeiture of Personal Weapons and Firearms Identification Card Belonging to F.M., concluded that the Family Part judge misinterpreted the statute as requiring the F.M. suffer from a specific disorder in order to be prohibited from possession his firearms and also misapplied the statute by requiring the State to prove “more than just a showing that some danger might exist” when the State was only required to meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in showing that F.M.’s possession of firearms was against the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. The N.J. Supreme Court found that the evidence presented by G.M. with regard to prior acts of domestic violence against her by F.M. and the testimony of two licensed psychologists who both concluded that F.M., based on his lack of self-control and inability to deescalate situations with his own wife, was unfit to perform the duties of a police officer. A Fitness for Duty evaluation by one of the psychologists further concluded that F.M. was a danger to himself and others and should be stripped of his weapons. If you are charged with domestic violence or seeking a final restraining order against an abuser, there are specific burdens of proof for both parties in proving or disproving the charges making it critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you in such matters. For more information regarding domestic violence, restraining orders, assault, battery and other criminal law issues in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Concealed Weapons Carry Permits for NJ Citizens "In Need"?

Governor Christie is in a battle with the Democrats controlling both houses of the NJ Legislature over concealed weapons carry permits in New Jersey. While Christie has determined that the restrictions requiring the showing of a “justifiable need” for a carry permit are too restrictive, the Legislature claims that Christie’s criteria requiring a showing of “serious threats” against one’s life is violative of the Legislative intent in the creation of the existing gun control laws in NJ. In addition to complaints by gun rights advocates indicating the permitting process was inefficient and overly restrictive, Chistie indicated that changes were a response to the murder of Carol Browne by her ex-boyfriend, against whom she had a restraining order, while Ms. Brown awaited approval of her gun permit. A3689 and SCR101 were immediately sponsored by the Assembly and Senate respectively in a response seeking to codify regulatory language relating to handgun carry permits. Democrats in control of the Senate and Assembly argued that the new standards could serve to substantially increase the number of carry permits in NJ and allow an overly broad spectrum of individuals to obtain permits. The Attorney General’s office replied that all other statutory requirements would continue to apply and a Superior Court judge would have to sign off on the permit so that the only change would be from the showing of an “actual need” to a showing of a specific “serious threat” against the person seeking the permit. The fate of this legislation is still pending. 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 only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Handgun In Plain View? Prove it!

Jarrell Williams was convicted of second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b) after an officer allegedly saw a handgun in plain view on the floor of his vehicle during a motor vehicle stop. At all times during the proceedings, Williams maintained that he was unaware that the vehicle, recently purchased by his mother, contained a handgun. Williams also maintained that the gun was not in plain view on the floor of the vehicle near the driver’s seat. The facts collectively presented at trial in State v. Williams are that 4 men, including the defendant, entered the vehicle and smoked marijuana then the defendant pulled the vehicle out of the driveway just as two plain clothed police officers came down the street at which point Williams immediately pulled over and turned off the vehicle. The officers claimed that the location and actions of the defendant and the vehicles’ other occupants gave rise to suspicion and the officers turned around. Seeing the officers’ vehicle turn around, all 4 occupants exited the vehicle before the officers engaged them in conversation. Conflicting accounts of the vehicle’s ownership were offered by occupants and Officer Brown approached the vehicle, with its doors open, to verify the registration. The officer’s testimony was that he observed a marijuana cigarette and plastic bag and, upon going to retrieve same, noticed the pistol on the floor in front of the driver’s seat. The 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the New Jersey Constitution establish and protect a defendant’s right to present a complete defense including confrontation of witnesses. Several cases including State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147 (2003), State v. Budis, 125 N.J. 519 (1991), State v. Sugar, 100 N.J. 214 (1985), State v. Crudup, 176 N.J. Super. 215 (App. Div. 1980) and State v. Guenther, 181 N.J. 129 (2004) have upheld this right but within the constraints of N.J.R.E. 611(a) and N.J.R.E. 401 which afford the court discretion of control over the trial. The N.J. Appellate Division ultimately decided that the jury should not be placed in the position of determining the constitutionality of a search and seizure but that Defense counsel’s line of questioning was not in danger of placing them in that position and was instead intended to determine whether the officer had a predetermined purpose in offering the statements he had made and was an attempt to introduce motive on the part of the officer to testify in a certain manner. The NJ Appellate Division determined that the defendant’s right to cross-examine the officer was violated and that, due to the possible influence this may have had on the decision of the jury, the matter was remanded for a new trial. Weapons offenses are subject to severe punishment including incarceration for 5-10 years for many such offenses. If you are charged with unlawful possession of a weapon, it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to represent you. For more information about possession of a handgun without a permit, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon while on parole or probation, possession of a weapon during a drug related offense or other serious weapons charges visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

DUI Dismissed On Speedy Trial Violation

In State v. Cahill, the defendant faced a driving under the influence (DUI) charge after being found guilty of assault by auto charges stemming from the same event. It was established that Michael Cahill consumed alcohol at a bar, later drove from the bar, swerved to avoid an obstacle in the road, crossed two lanes of traffic and collided with a police car causing injuries to the officer. Following a conviction and sentencing in the death by auto matter, the Superior Court judge remanded the driving while intoxicated charge to municipal court for disposition. A full 16 months later, Michael Cahill received notice from the municipal court that his matter had been scheduled for trial. Through counsel, he filed a motion to dismiss based on the court’s failure to uphold his right to a speedy trial. The municipal court judge denied the motion and Cahill appealed after entering a conditional guilty plea. The NJ Superior Court held that Cahill’s right to a speedy trial was violated under the particular circumstances of the matter and vacated the sentence after a review of the matter based on the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Barker v. Wingo. In Barker v. Wingo, the US Supreme Court established a four factor balancing test to determine whether a defendant’s right to a speedy trial was upheld. In the instant case, the NJ Superior Court found the 16 month delay was held to be too lengthy, without good cause, and prejudicial to the defendant who suffered anxiety over the prospect of the trail as well as limited his employment alternatives based on the likelihood he would be found guilty at trial. The decision to dismiss the DWI charge was upheld by the NJ Appellate Division and the NJ Supreme Court and Cahill’s sentence was vacated. Driving under the influence charges carry significant consequences including loss of driving privileges for 7-12 months for a first offense, 2 years for a second offense and ten years for a third or subsequent offense as well as substantial fines and penalties, the inability to work and the social stigma that is associated with DUI. There are ways that an attorney can help you, even if you think you will be found guilty and it is always critical that you consult with an experienced traffic attorney prior to deciding whether to enter into a guilty plea for DUI. For more information about DUI/DWI, reckless driving and other serious traffic court matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

Theft of $100,000 From N.J. Employer

Deborah Meehan was convicted of second-degree theft by unlawful taking (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3) after issuing checks to herself in the amount of over $100,000 by affixing the stamp of a law firm partner to checks in her control as the law firm's bookkeeper. Following an investigation, Meehan was questioned and admitted, during a videotaped interview, that she did not have permission to issue the checks. The jury found Meehan guilty of second-degree theft but, at sentencing, the trial judge downgraded the offense to third-degree and sentenced her to prison, refusing to accept her application for probation. The State appealed and the Defendant cross-appealed indicating she did not effectively waive her right to remain silent and therefore her confession should be suppressed. In State v. Meehan, the NJ Appellate Division initially reviewed the voluntariness of the Defendant's confession under State v. Hreha, 217 N.J. 368 (2014), Miranda V. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), State v. Graham, 59 N.J. 366 (1971), State v. Warmbrun, 277 N.J. Super. 51 (App. Div. 1994), and State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631 (1993). The panel held that the state met it's burden of proof showing the police did not overbear Meehan's will and her statement was provided after a voluntary and knowing waiver of her rights. The panel further held that neither the jury charge nor the prosecutor's statements were prejudicial to the Defendant. The panel did find for the State in holding that it was an abuse of the trial judge's discretion to downgrade the second-degree conviction to third-degree. Pursuant to State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984), the NJ Appellate Division will not typically disturb the sentence of a trial court unless it constitutes abuse of discretion. Pursuant to State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210 (1989) and State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49 (2014), the state must first review the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and then balance the relevant factors and explain how the final sentencing decision is reached in light of the analysis. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d) requires prison for second-degree crimes unless there are exceptional circumstances as the court fully set forth in State v. Evers, 175 N.J. 355 (2003) and, under the facts, denial of probation was appropriate. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2) relating to the downgrade of sentences, sets forth that where mitigating factors substantially outweigh the aggravating factors and the interests of justice are best served by the downgrade, the court has discretion to reduce the term to that of a crime one degree below that for which the Defendant was convicted. State v. Megargel, 143 N.J. 484 (1996) and State v. Lake, 408 N.J. Super. 313 (App. Div. 2009) jointly provide a valuable explanation of the analysis the court should conduct in considering a downgrade. The N.J. Appellate panel considered the legislative intent in drafting N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2(b)(1). The panel agreed with the State's likening of the matter to State v. Jones, 197 N.J. Super 604 (App. Div. 1984) wherein a defendant's second degree theft by deception (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4) was downgraded to third-degree and later reversed after the court found the downgrade to be abuse of the trial court's discretion. The N.J. Appellate Division ultimately reversed the downgraded sentence, holding that Meehan's theft of over $100,000 from her employer was serious and a downgrade would not serve the interests of justice, and remanded for sentencing accordingly. A second-degree theft conviction will result in a 5-10 year prison sentence. If you are facing second-degree criminal charges it is critical you obtain an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights and build a defense against the prosecution's case. For more information about theft, burglary and other serious criminal issues in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

NJ Handgun Permit Guidelines To Be Updated

Handgun permit processing in New Jersey is undergoing updates. On April 8, 2016, Acting Attorney General Robert Loughy issued new directives regarding uniformity in processing designed to limit instances of extreme delay and other problems. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3 sets forth the application procedures and forms which are to be utilized by permit issuing bodies and no deviation is permitted. Agencies are prohibited from applying personal views regarding civilian firearms regulation, requiring additional forms, requiring additional information from applicants or otherwise deviating from the standards set forth. Gun permit issuing agencies have a 30 day time period to review applications under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f), unless the applicant's life is in specific danger in which case the gun permit application review period is decreased to 14 days. Disqualification occurs upon conviction of an indictable crime or a disorderly persons domestic violence offense. Interestingly, in spite of these steps toward uniformity, there is also a very broad category for disqualification which allows issuing bodies discretion to deny a handgun permit or firearms purchaser identification card if the "issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare." N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). The New Jersey State Police are charged with the drafting of uniform investigation standards. In addition, there are to be updates to Firearms Transport Guidelines. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6, transport of a firearm that is unloaded and secured in a fastened case or gun box or inside of a locked trunk is permitted directly between a home and business, place of purchase and home or business, directly from a home or business to a range or place of hunting, between a home or business and a gun repair shop or licensed gun dealer and between residences when moving. There are also undefined "reasonably necessary" deviations permitted in the route of transportation including the purchase of fuel, food, beverages, medication and other supplies; use of a restroom, pickup or discharge of passengers, emergencies, detours and other reasons. The reasonability of the deviation and lawfulness of transport is subject to the judgment of the officer encountering an individual undertaking transport. If you 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.

Drug Possession Charges In Superior Court Barred By Same Evidence Test

During an undercover drug operation, Rodney Miles was charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of school property (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(12)) as well as a petty disorderly persons offense of possession of under 50 grams of marijuana (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a). While lodged in the Camden County Jail, following indictment, the defendant appeared pro se, waiving his right to counsel, via video conference from the county jail and entered into a guilty plea for the disorderly persons offense of possession of under 50 grams of marijuana after it was downgraded to the offense of loitering to possess marijuana (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-2(b)(1)). During the colloquy during which the plea was entered, Miles attempted to obtain clarification with regard to the specific matter on which he was appearing, and whether charges would remain in the Superior Court following the plea. It was very apparent, from the responses offered by the judge, that the municipal court judge did not understand the questions asked by the defendant regarding his remaining charges. Thereafter, In State v. Miles, Miles sought dismissal of the charges pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County based on double jeopardy as he had entered a guilty plea to charges stemming from the same event. In State v. Salter, 425 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 2012), the court interpreted the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, 11 of the New Jersey Constitution as protecting against a second prosecution following acquittal or conviction and multiple punishments for a single offense or set of events. In State v. Dively, 92 N.J. 573 (1982), the court held the Constitutional protections to be applicable in the municipal court. Although the court held that fundamental fairness pursuant to the defendant's argument grounded on State v. Yoskowitz, 116 N.J. 679 (1989) was not applicable, any subsequent prosecution in the Superior Court was barred under the same evidence test set forth in State v. Salter. The Court held that the municipal court plea resolved all charges stemming from the defendant's arrest. Drug charges can destroy your future and, if you have prior drug charges, you are subject to harsher sentences each time. If you are facing charges for drug possession or distribution you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. For more information about controlled dangerous substances (CDS), distribution, possession, under the influence, paraphernalia or CDS in a motor vehicle visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Expungement Petition And Effect Of Other Crimes

In the Matter of DiGregorio involved a petitioner who sought the expungement from his record of the disorderly persons offense of lewdness and his petition was denied. On appeal, the NJ Appellate Division applied the statute relating to expungement of disorderly and petty disorderly offenses, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-3 to the facts in the instant matter. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-3 reads as follows: Any person convicted of a disorderly persons offense or petty disorderly persons offense under the laws of this State who has not been convicted of any prior or subsequent crime, whether within this State or any other jurisdiction, or of another three disorderly persons or petty disorderly persons offenses, may, after the expiration of a period of 5 years from the date of his conviction, payment of fine, satisfactory completion of probation or release from incarceration, whichever is later, present a duly verified petition… praying that such conviction and all records and information pertaining thereto be expunged. The petitioner properly waited the requisite 5 year period following conviction, payment of his fines and completion of probation in order to seek expungement of the disorderly persons offense. However, the petitioner was disqualified from meeting the expungement criteria as a result of having had two subsequent criminal convictions, one in 2008 and another in 2013. The N.J. Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the petition. A criminal record can affect your ability to obtain certain jobs, get into certain schools of your choice, obtain housing and have other serious consequences including a negative social stigma. Expungement offers a second chance at a clean record. New Jersey legislators have recently taken steps to make expungement more available in an effort to prevent recidivist criminal activity. Although expungement is available, it should not be taken as a given. If you or your child are seeking an expungement, you should consult experienced criminal defense counsel in order to ensure you qualify and that the crime on your record is expungeable. For more information about expungement, disorderly persons offenses or other criminal matters, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

First-Degree Aggravated Sexual Assault Remanded For Jury Charge

R.P. was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(6)) against his step-daughter O.M. while she was under the age of thirteen. R.P. was sentenced to 26 years in prison with a 13 year period of parole ineligibility. On the defendant's appeal, challenging the conviction based on the trial court's failure to charge the jury with the lesser-included offense of second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1)), the NJ Appellate Division found for the Defendant and vacated the conviction. Additionally, the Appellate Division denied the state's request for a molded verdict pursuant to State v. Farrad, 753 A.2d 648, 164 N.J. 247, 192 N.J. 294 (2007), and remand for a new trial with on the first-degree aggravated sexual assault charge. The NJ Supreme Court's review of State v. R.P. was focused solely on the state's request for a molded verdict. Pursuant to State v. Farrad, the court identified 3 factors: (1) the defendant had his day in court; (2) each element of the lesser-included offense was included in the more serious offense; and (3) the jury's conviction for the more serious offense implies guilt in of the lesser-included offense. In State v. R.P., the court added a prejudice element to the 3 factors by stating that, when all 3 factors are met and the defendant is not unduly prejudiced, a molded verdict should be granted for the state. The court reversed and remanded the matter. If you are charged with a sex crime you are subject to incarceration, registration as a sex offender and the accompanying stigma which will effect 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 DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.