Distribution Conviction Reversed For Detective's Improper Testimony

Brian Firman was charged with third-degree possession of cocaine (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)); third-degree possession with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1)) and 5(b)(3)); third-degree distribution (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a) and 5(b)(3)); and third-degree distribution of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school zone (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7). The charges stemmed from a detectives observation of the defendant and 2 other men in what he believed to be a hand to hand drug transaction which, when he approached to speak to them, was terminated abruptly and one of the men was observed to throw something on the ground which proved to be crack cocaine. During the pat-down search that followed, there paraphernalia was located on the persons of the other 2 co-defendants but nothing in the report reflected possession on the part of Firman. At trial, Firman was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 6 years in prison. In State v. Firman, the defendant appealed on the basis that the detective, McDonald, a non-expert, offered testimony exceeding the level permitted from a fact witness through his ample opinions. The defendant failed to object at trial, leaving the NJ Appellate Division to review the matter under the plain error standard of State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91 (2013). Under the plain error standard, the Appellate Division would reverse in the event that the testimony of McDonald which crossed the line into expert testimony, which he was not qualified to offer, could have led the jury to a different result than it would have reached without the inappropriate testimony. State v. Atwater, 400 N.J. Super. 319 (App. Div. 2008). The N.J. Appellate Division determined that without the impermissible testimony of the detective, the jury could have reached a different result and that the guilty verdict must be reversed with the matter remanded for a new trial. If you are facing charges for drug distribution or possession, there are multiple components which may affect the ultimate outcome. Drug distribution charges are met with harsh penalties due to the public interest in deterrence and it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to protect you against the charges and penalties. For more information regarding drug distribution, possession and possession with intent to distribute visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Officer Unqualified To Give Opinion Allows Reversal Of Drug Convictions

Wasan Brockington was convicted of possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), possession with intent to distribute CDS, distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in a school zone and conspiracy. The drugs in question were cocaine and heroin. New Brunswick Police were conducting surveillance in a specific location. Sergeant Quick claimed to have witnessed several transactions wherein money was handed by third-parties to the co-defendant, Fitzpatrick, then the defendant would walk down a driveway with the third-party and they would both return within a minute and the third-party would walk off. Quick suspected these were drug transactions and even characterized each transaction as a heroin transaction or a cocaine transaction. However, he made no arrests, had no evidence to test and claimed to be at a substantial distance viewing the transactions through binoculars. At some point, officers closed in and saw Brockington throw down a newspaper with bags of suspected heroin inside and found 2 bags each of heroin and cocaine on the third-party suspected drug buyer leaving the scene. After police seized Brockington and the evidence, he advised that all of the drugs were his and that the co-defendant was innocent. In State v. Brockington, the defendant filed a motion to suppress his statement, to compel the disclosure of the officers’ surveillance point and other pre-trial motions but all were denied by trial judge in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County. The defendant also objected to the inclusion of Sergeant Quick’s testimony regarding drug transactions he allegedly witnessed as his testimony was elicited by the prosecutor in a manner making him appear to be an expert on the subject of drugs and drug transactions when he offered that he could discern cocaine from heroin at a great distance but the court allowed it. At the conclusion of trial, no limiting instruction to the jury was requested. Brockington was sentenced to 10 years with a 5 year parole ineligibility period. Defendant appealed and the N.J. Appellate Division looked to N.J.R.E. 701as interpreted in the similar matters of State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (2011) and United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 215 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1154, 128 S. Ct. 1100, 169 L. Ed.2d 831 (2008) wherein it was held that “a lay opinion must be the product of reasoning processes familiar to the average person in everyday life.” The Appellate Division found the opinion of Sergeant Quick to far exceed the established boundary of lay opinion testimony. The prosecutor also bolstered Quick’s testimony as credible and accurate which further prejudiced the defendant in violation of the strictures set forth in State v. Bradshaw, 195 N.J 493 (2008) and State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76 (1999). The Appellate Division then reviewed and compared a litany of cases to determine whether testimony about the other alleged transactions in which no arrests were made and from which no evidence was retrieved violated N.J.R.E. 404 (b) and determined it may be used as the probative value was not likely substantially outweighed by prejudice to the defendant. The matter was ultimately reversed and remanded for a new trial based on the likelihood of unfair prejudice toward Brockington. Penalties for drug distribution in NJ are severe and lasting, often including lengthy prison terms with significant parole ineligibility periods. If you have been charged with a drug offense an experienced criminal defense attorney can protect your rights. For more information about drug distribution, possession, possession with intent to distribute or controlled dangerous substances (CDS) visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Possession Conviction Reversed On Right To Remain Silent

Jamaal Shockley was indicted for third-degree possession of cocaine, a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)); third-degree possession of cocaine, a CDS, with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1)); and second-degree eluding police (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b)) after he fled from police when they attempted to get him to stop while he was riding a dirt bike. Shockley fled and the pursuit continued until he fell off the motorcycle and was tackled by officers while attempting to run away. The defendant was patted down for weapons at the scene, his jacket was searched at the police department and his shoes and jacket were again checked prior to leaving the hospital after treatment. While being booked into the county jail, the defendant was again patted down before removing his clothes. Each of the prior searches was negative for weapons or contraband. After Shockley had removed his clothing as part of processing and was already lodged in jail, corrections officer Brooks again searched his clothing outside of his presence and discovered a bag containing 14 bags of cocaine within another small bag in the pocket of the defendant's sweatshirt. In State v. Shockley, the defendant was found guilty of possession of a CDS and eluding police. Shockley was sentenced to 8 years with 4 years of parole ineligibility for the eluding charge and a concurrent 6 year term with 3 years of parole ineligibility for the CDS charges. The defendant appealed on multiple grounds including that corrections officer Brooks testified regarding Shockley's silence when notified by Brooks that the cocaine had been discovered. Although the defendant did not object to Brooks' testimony at trial, reversal is required if it was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. State v. Taffaro, 195 N. J. 442 (2008). The Appellate Division looked to State v. Stas, 212 N.J. 37, 59 (2012) wherein the court considered the privilege against self-incrimination as set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-19 and N.J.R.E. 503. The court cited Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 618-19, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 2245, 49 L. Ed.2d 91, 98 (1976) with regard to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the protection it offers both pre and post-arrest silence. In NJ, State v. Brown, 118 N.J. 595, 610 (1990) affords an accused the right to remain silent while "in custody or under interrogation." The NJ Appellate Division found the testimony to be plain error as it offered no probative value and was clearly in violation of Shockley's rights to remain silent and a fair trial. The matter was reversed and remanded for a new trial. A drug related conviction in NJ can have serious and lasting consequences including prison, loss of license, substantial fines and the stigma of the conviction or plea can result in the loss of certain employment or educational opportunities. If you are facing charges of use, possession or distribution of CDS, it is critical you consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information about prescription or non-prescription drug charges for use possession or distribution, controlled dangerous substances in a motor vehicle, DUI and other criminal and serious municipal court matters visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Drug Addicted Defendants No Longer Denied Admission To Drug Court For Weapons Charges

Over the rejection of the prosecution, Gregory Maurer sought entry into Drug Court while under separate indictments for (1) third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (ocycodone) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)); (2) two counts of third-degree possession of CDS (oxycodone and heroin) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-(a)(1)); (3) third-degree possession of CDS (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)); and (4) two counts of third degree theft by unlawful taking (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a)) and third-degree burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1)). The prosecutor’s denial was based solely on Maurer’s prior charge for possession of a handgun (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)) and hollow point bullets. The trial court made its decision based on the defendant’s prior conviction for a weapons related offense and Maurer appealed. In State v. Maurer, the NJ Appellate Division determined that the defendant’s record, the “Manual for Operation of Adult Drug Courts In New Jersey” (July 2002)(Manual) and the Drug Court Statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14). The NJ Appellate Division did consider that Maurer had also been charged with witness tampering (N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5) and other prior CDS charges which were remanded to the respective municipal courts for disposition. They also considered Maurer’s participation in Narcotics Anonymous and other substance abuse counseling programs as well as his employment as an outreach counselor at a rehabilitation facility. The NJ Appellate Division considered that Drug Court is appropriate for “offenders most likely to benefit from treatment and do not pose a risk to public safety.” State v. Meyer, 192 N.J. 421, 428-29 (2007) (quoting Manual, Supra, at 3). The opinion also included a thorough review of Drug Court success rates and the Legislative intent to end the cycle of drug offenders interacting with the criminal justice system as a result of addiction. State v. Bishop, 429 N.J. Super. 533, (App. Div.), 216 N.J. 14 (2013). There was also discussion of a two “track” system wherein, according to the Manual, a criminal history involving a firearm acts as a bar to admission in spite of the apparent Legislative intent to increase Drug Court access for those likely to benefit from resolving addiction issues. The Court resolved that an amendment to the Track Two admission criteria was required and remanded the matter for consideration of the defendant’s application to Drug Court despite his prior weapons offense. If you are facing distribution or possession charges, there are many factors which may affect how your case is ultimately resolved. You should immediately retain experienced criminal defense counsel to protect your rights. For more information regarding drug distribution, possession with intent to distribute, weapons offenses or other serious criminal offenses in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sentence For Possession With Intent To Distribute Should Fit The Offender At The Time Of Sentencing

Joseph Jafee pled guilty, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, to third-degree conspiracy to possess a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1)) for which the judge imposed a three-year sentence in spite of marked changes in Jaffee’s lifestyle in the year between his guilty plea and sentencing. Jaffee became engaged and acted as a father to his fiancee’s son, remained sober, routinely attended substance abuse meetings and became a counselor to at-risk youth. Additionally, as part of the plea agreement, Jaffee cooperated in the prosecution of his co-defendants. Judge Manahan followed the sentencing guidelines but refused to consider the changes Jaffee had made in the prior year. The NJ Appellate Division affirmed the sentence and Jaffee appealed. In State v. Jaffe, the NJ Supreme Court considered the opinions of State v. Bridges, 131 N.J. 402 (1993) and State v. Hodge, 95 N.J. 369 (1984) with regard to its analysis of uniform sentencing consideration. In addition, the NJ Supreme Court pointed to the fact that the NJ Code of Criminal Justice does allow for consideration of the defendant’s individual situation. Ultimately, the NJ Supreme Court held that, in light of State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330 (2012), the Law Division should have assess the defendant “as he stands before the court on the day of sentencing” in addition to simply weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors. After making the determination that Jaffe’s circumstances at the time of sentencing should be considered, the NJ Supreme Court remanded for resentencing in light of the fact that the sentencing judge specifically declined consideration thereof. If you have been charged with possession or possession with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), it is critical that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately in order that all exculpatory evidence may be obtained, favorable witnesses may be located, and all appropriate procedures are followed by the police and the prosecution. There are frequently problems with consent to search, warrants, Miranda warnings, inappropriate denial of suppression motions and improper trial procedure which may make a substantial difference in the outcome of your matter. For more information about possession, intent to distribute, CDS, conspiracy and other drug charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Drugs Suppressed When Found Outside Scope Of Warrant

Police executing a no-knock warrant at a residence located Chad Bivins and co-defendant, Sayid Jordan, in a vehicle located several residences away and, upon removing them from the car searching them, discovered 30 bags of crack cocaine on each of them. Bivins sought to have the crack cocaine suppressed based on his location well outside the residence subject to the warrant but the trial court denied the motion holding that defendant's location was proximate to the residence based on the totality of the circumstances, especially in light of the fact that an officer assigned to the scene located Bivins and co-defendants after receiving a report of individual exiting the residence to be searched. The defendant appealed the denial of the suppression motion in State v. Bivins. The NJ Appellate Division reversed in reliance on a existing laws with regard to the scope of a search warrant. State v. Reldon, 100 N.J. 187 (1985) limits officers to a search of appropriate areas when executing a search. the warrant in question limited police to search the residence and "all persons present reasonably believed to be connected to said property and investigation. The Appellate Division distinguished this from State v. Carolino, 373 N.J. Super. 377 (App..Div. 2004) wherein "any and app persons arriving at, departing from and located [in] the residence and vehicle in question were included in the warrant and both the behavior and proximity of the defendant therein differed greatly from Bivins. Bailey v. United States, ___U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1031, 185 L. Ed.2d 19 (2013) dictates that specific facts are required to connect an individual to a scene once they have departed premises subject to a warrant. The Appellate Division applied Bailey to the facts including neither the defendant nor the Pontiac in which he was located were described in the affidavit supporting the warrant, he was located a substantial distance outside the residence to be searched, the officer who searched the defendant received no report that the individuals fled the premises with evidence sought under the warrant being executed and the defendant did not act in a suspicious manner. The Appellate Division found that upholding the search would afford officers executing warrants overly broad discretion and therefore reversed the denial of the suppression motion. Drug charges, particularly distribution charges, have serious consequences including substantial terms of incarceration and enhanced penalties under certain circumstances. If you are facing drug charges and believe evidence obtained against you may have been obtained in violation of your rights, you should consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. For more information about controlled dangerous substances (CDS), warrantless searches, distribution of CDS, possession, CDS in a motor vehicle or other criminal issues in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and in no way 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.

Drug Distribution Conviction Reversed For Lack Of Probable Cause

Jermaine Wright was charged with possession of controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a) and possession of CDS with intent to distribute (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5). Wright's arrest was made by police in Trenton after Ewing Township detectives received a tip from a confidential informant that "Jazzz" was delivering CDS in Trenton in a specific vehicle. Initially the Ewing detectives followed up on the tip, verifying the vehicle and general location provided by the informant, but seeing no activity indicative of drug trade, then Ewing was dispatched to another call and passed the information on to Trenton detectives. Trenton detectives located the vehicle and approached on foot. Later testimony would conflict as to whether the officers guns were drawn as they approached the vehicle. The officer used flashlights to illuminate the occupied vehicle's interior and saw the occupants using a scale to measure a quantity of CDS, which they suspected to be cocaine. As the driver exited the vehicle, a large amount of money could be viewed plainly in the purse she left behind and a bag on the passenger seat was partially open leaving a significant quantity of cocaine in plain view. In State v. Wright, Defendant attempted to suppress the evidence claiming the officers' actions constituted de facto arrest without probable cause but the judge held that the stop was investigative in nature, of limited duration and of little intrusion upon the Defendant's liberty. The judge further held that the evidence initially seized was in plain view and the remainder was seized based on probable cause and under exigent circumstances. In spite of the motion judge's determination that Trenton officers parked their vehicle in a manner to prevent the defendants' exit and swift approach with guns drawn conveying the message they were not free to leave, the judge held the stop was not thereby converted to an arrest requiring probable cause. The Defendant's motion to suppress the CDS was denied and he entered a guilty plea to narcotics related offenses. The NJ Appellate Division referred to State v. Dickey, 152 N.J. 468, 475 (1998) in holding "the temporary detention of individuals during an automobile stop by police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose constitutes a seizure. The Appellate Division also referenced State v. Gibson, ___ N.J. ___, (2014) in finding the judge below inaccurately utilized the reasonable and articulable suspicion standard for a stop rather than the probable cause standard required for an arrest. After a thorough analysis of warrantless seizure cases (State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6 (2009), State v. Cooke, 163 N.J. 657 (2000) and State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328 (2010)) and cases involving levels of police interaction (State v. Nishina, 175 N.J. 502 (2003), Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), State v. Stoval, 170 N.J. 346 (2002), State v. Bernokeits, 423 N.J. Super. 365 (App. Div. 2011)) the appellate judges looked to further considerations including the duration of the stop, reasonableness, degree of the intrusion and the State's interest in the welfare of the public. The Appellate Division further reasoned that a reasonable articulable suspicion was required in this case but there were no particularized facts justifying the seizure. In fact, Trenton detectives testified they observed nothing giving rise to suspicion and approached the vehicle solely on the limited information provided by the Ewing Township detectives. The appellate division reasoned that the seizure of Wright was illegal as it was not supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion. Therefore, pursuant to State v. Smith, 155 N.J. 83 (1998), the appellate division reasoned the evidence obtained from the unlawful seizure must be suppressed and reversed the decision of the court below. Drug distribution charges are met with harsh penalties due to the public interest in deterrence. If you are facing charges for drug distribution or possession, there are multiple factors which may affect the ultimate outcome and an experienced criminal defense attorney will know how to protect your rights. For more information regarding drug distribution, possession, possession with intent to distribute or controlled dangerous substances (CDS) visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Change To Spousal Privilege Following Drug Distribution Case?

Yolanda Terry, Teron Savoy and multiple others were charged with conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute as well as distribution of cocaine and heroin (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, 2C:35-5a and 2C:35-5b(1)). Teron Savoy and his wife, Yolanda Terry, were part of an alleged drug manufacturing and trafficking network along with approximately 20 others. Savoy was also charged as a leader of a drug trafficking network (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3) and possession with intent to distribute heroin (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3). As a result of their observations of Savoy and others including Terry who purportedly worked under Savoy, the State obtained a warrant to intercept communications of Savoy and others. In State v. Yolanda Terry, the spousal communication privilege was determined to protect communications between husband and wife even in the event that such communications are in furtherance of ongoing or future criminal activity. The NJ Supreme Court, in upholding the privilege and suppressing communications intercepted by the State through a wiretap of Yolanda Terry's phone, did make clear that upholding the privilege in the face of criminal activity was likely contrary to the Legislative intent. Although communications were overheard and therefore would be disclosed by the State as a third party they do not lose their privileged status according to N.J.S.A. 2A:156-11, a provision of the NJ Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -37). In rendering its unanimous opinion the NJ Supreme Court held that although safeguarded under current legislation, the marital privilege is intended to encourage communication between spouses with the goal of harmonious marriages and is not intended to further spouses engaged in joint criminal enterprise. Also included in the opinion of the Court was the fact that multiple other privileges are set aside under exception when ongoing or future criminal activity is furthered by said privileges. An example included in the opinion of the Court was Matthews v. Hoagland, 48 N.J. Eq. 455, 465-70 (Ch. 1891) where the "crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege was recognized in New Jersey common law in the case that first acknowledged the privilege itself." As a result of this case, the NJ Supreme Court petitioned the Legislature to modify New Jersey Rule of Evidence 509 to create an exception when the marital privilege serves to further criminal acts. If you have been charged with drug related crimes or were charged with criminal activity as a result of a wiretap, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about controlled dangerous substances (CDS) including possession, manufacturing, distribution or possession with the intent to distribute, CDS in a motor vehicle or driving under the influence (DUI) as a result of ingesting CDS visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Convicted Drug Dealer Is To Have Jail Credits Recalculated

Ramon Wilson entered into a negotiated plea agreement to third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (cocaine), with intent to distribute within a school zone (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a)), third-degree possession of a CDS (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1)) and a violation of probation. the State's offer was to recommend concurrent aggregate 5 year prison terms with a 3 year parole ineligibility period as well as dismissal of the remaining charges. Pursuant to the agreement, the remaining charges under the indictment were dismissed including second-degree possession of a CDS with intent to distribute (cocaine) (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1), (b)(2), second-degree possession of a CDS (cocaine) with intent to distribute within 500 feet of a public housing facility, public park or public building (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1) and third-degree burglary (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2). Wilson, prior to entering into the plea, had filed an unsuccessful suppression motion to suppress drugs seized by the police and appealed the court's denial of the motion. Defendant's appeal with regard to the drugs was grounded in lack of lawful presence of police officers in an apartment when the drugs were discovered. Whitehead, the renter of an apartment known to permit dealers to distribute from his residence in exchange for free narcotics, was encountered by police on a visit to the building regarding a call about drug distribution therein. Upon encountering police, Whitehead advised that he had just returned home to three "crackheads" in his apartment distributing drugs and asked that the police remove the drug dealers from his unit. When police entered the apartment defendant jumped up and ran toward the bathroom and a bag of crack cocaine fell from his lap. Police also recovered 18 grams of crack cocaine from behind the toilet tank in the bathroom into which the defendant attempted to flee. The appellate court, in State v. Wilson, found the denial of defendant's motion to suppress to be grounded in sound legal principles and saw no reason to disturb the finding of the court below. Defendant also sought a recalculation of jail credits for the period of incarcerations between his December 2010 incarceration and August 12, 2011 sentencing. The sentencing court credited the defendant with 257 days of jail credit, however, the appellate division determined that the jail credits were not calculated according to the principles in State v. Hernandez, 208 N.J. 24 (2011) and remanded for recalculation of defendant's jail credits. If you are facing charges of distribution or possession of CDS, you should obtain an experienced criminal defense lawyer immediately. For more information about drug distribution, possession, prescription medication, under the influence, CDS in a motor vehicle, DUI or other drug related matters in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only 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.

NJ Overdose Immunity Law

The state of New Jersey has been working in the past months to try and boost the awareness of the Overdose Prevention Act, which could result in less drug charges for users in an effort save many. This past May, the state passed and signed into law the Overdose Prevention Act, which is designed to give immunity to both those who could potentially be overdosing and those who are looking to alert health professionals in order to save their friends. In the past other drug users did not want to involve themselves in the act of calling 911 in order to seek help. For decades those who were at the scene of the drug overdose would be taken into custody for charges of drug use or possession, which kept many from potentially acting to save others lives due to the fear of imprisonment. As a result of consequences to those who report, many users of heroin, cocaine and other controlled dangerous substances (CDS) there have been an unreasonable number of deaths from drug overdoses. Because death is a frequent and tragic consequence of CDS use, this legislation has been enacted to encourage others to seek help when someone’s life could be in jeopardy. The Overdose Protection Act is written to protect both the user potentially overdosing and any others that are alerting the authorities from drug use or possession charges. Just weeks ago New Jersey’s Attorney’s General Office sent out a directive to all law enforcement agencies to remind them to implement the law properly in order for it achieve the results the state wishes. With the new act implemented the state is hoping for a sharp decrease in deaths due to drug overdoses. Possession, distribution or other drug charges in NJ have serious consequences. If you are facing any of these charges you should seek experienced legal counsel immediately to protect your rights. For more information on possession, distribution, prescription drug charges, CDS in a motor vehicle or other drug charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com this blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of legal counsel.