Dash Camera Video Available In Traffic Cases?

In October 2014, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Vincent Grasso issued two rulings regarding police dash cam video records that have stirred quite a bit of interest from attorneys who handle traffic cases in New Jersey. As an attorney, I routinely hear a story from my clients which differs greatly from the contents of the police report I receive in response to my discovery request. Although the officer prepares a routine report at the end or shortly after their shift, they handle many similar matters day in and day out. This results in an awareness of what highlights to give attention to when writing a report as well as a blurring of their memory as to specific incidents as a result of substantial similarity in driving under the influence (DUI) stops, reckless driving stops and other motor vehicle stops. On the other hand, a driver facing DUI, reckless driving, careless driving or other motor vehicle charges is likely to be stopped on an infrequent basis and have absolutely no confusion about the conditions and events surrounding the motor vehicle stop. On the other hand, the driver is most often unfamiliar with the statute under which they are being stopped and the portions of the event they recall specifically may not relate to the statutory factors which will determine their guilt or innocence. For example, drivers often focus on conditions external to the stop which, in their opinion, gave rise to the circumstances resulting in the stop such as the need to move a vehicle after consuming alcohol. In either version of the event, the officers or the defendant's, there is the possibility for error. If Judge Grasso's ruling with regard to the cases, including Ganzweig v. Township of Lakewood, result in the routine provision of video footage to the public, the diverging stories will become of less import as there will be an accurate and unbiased video recording of the event for the defendant, the officer, the prosecutor, defense counsel and the judge to view. As it stands, obtaining video of traffic stops, when available at all, can be challenging resulting in substantial delays of the matter and frustration to clients paying attorneys for continued court appearances for no purpose other than discovery motions with regard to the video sought in any particular matter. If you are facing charges for a traffic violation including DUI, driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), reckless driving, driving while suspended, controlled dangerous substances (CDS) in a motor vehicle or other traffic matters you can face incarceration, loss of license, substantial fines and surcharges and increased insurance rates. You should seek an experienced municipal court attorney to protect your rights. For more information about traffic court matters visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Murder Pled To Aggravated Manslaughter Leads To PCR Appplication

Lynn Giovanni was charged with first-degree purposeful and or knowing murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), 3(a)(2)); third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d)); and fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d)). She pled to aggravated manslaughter (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4) as a lesser included offense of knowing or purposeful murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), -(a)(2)) and was sentenced to 30 years in prison with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (NERA)(N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). Giovanni bludgeoned her 14 year old daughter to death while she slept. At the time, Giovanni was being treated for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and her daughter was having behavioral and adjustment problems after her parents' divorce and was being treated for depression. After killing her daughter, the defendant took multiple prescriptions in an effort to commit suicide but was unsuccessful. She then left the residence and repeatedly drove her vehicle into a guardrail trying to kill herself. During pre-trial psychological examinations of the defendant by defense experts she indicated that her actions were designed only to help her daughter end her pain and ultimately be with her through suicide and indicated that she had planned the killing for about a month. The State, under State v. Whitlow, 45 N.J. 3 (1965),conducted psychological examinations of the defendant which found her to be capable of understanding her actions at the time of the killing and that her actions were deliberate. After considering all evidence the parties came to terms on a plea agreement to first-degree murder but with the prosecutor recommending a sentence for aggravated manslaughter. At sentencing, in State v. Giovanni, the court reviewed the plea fully and the defendant participated in the conversation, providing replies when called for. Although the defendant filed no direct appeal, the defendant sought post-conviction relief (PCR) claiming that her sentence violated Briggs as her factual basis was not appropriate to aggravated manslaughter and mental issues interfered with her ability to understand the plea or sentence. She also claimed, during the PCR hearing, that her counsel advised her not to speak at sentencing. Defendant's counsel denied any such assertion. She further referenced plea offers which never existed in reality and the fact that her counsel did not adequately pursue insanity and diminished capacity defenses. Defendant next appealed the denial of her petition for post-conviction relief and the denial was upheld on all counts but remanded for reconsideration of her application to withdraw her plea in light of the lower court's misapplication of the factors set forth in State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009). Slater sets forth the standard for review of ineffective assistance of counsel claims as requiring the showing that "(1) counsel's performance was objectively deficient, falling outside the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; and (2) that counsel's performance created a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional efforts, the result of the proceeding would have been different." With regard to Slater factor one in particular, the court below was seen as taking a particularly harsh view. Regarding factor two, the court was advised to reconsider the defendant's mental capacity on remand. If you are facing charges of murder 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 HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Second DUI Offense Requires Mandatory Confinement

Roger Dent struck two vehicles stopped at a red light and was charged with driving under the influence (DUI)(N.J.S.A. 39:4-50), careless driving (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97), possession of an open container of alcohol (N.J.S.A. 39:4-51(b)) and failure to wear a seatbelt (N.J.S.A. 39:3-76.2(f)). The defendant was convicted of DUI in municipal court and sentenced to 180 days in prison as a third offender, as well as 10 year loss of driving privileges and substantial fines. Dent had three prior convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI). Due to one of the prior DUIs being without counsel, that particular DUI could not be used to enhance any future custodial sentences for DUI pursuant to State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1 (1990). Following appeal of the municipal court decision, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County. Dent was sentenced to 60 days in prison as a second-time DUI offender which, pursuant to the judge, he could serve in the County Supplemental Labor Service (CSLSP), frequently referred to as SLAP. In State v. Dent, the State appealed the sentence as contrary to N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(2) and (3) which specifies a minimum 48 hour period of incarceration which is also not to exceed 90 days and that said sentence “shall not be suspended or served on probation…” but the statute does allow for “county jail, to the workhouse of the county wherein the offense was committed, to an inpatient rehabilitation program or to an Intoxicated Driver Resource Center…” The NJ Appellate Division held that, pursuant to State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 174 (1964), “imprisonment was intended to be mandatory” for second-time or subsequent DWI offenders and remanded the matter to the Superior Court for resentencing. Dent’s argument that his 48 hours in an Intoxicated Driver’s Resource Center satisfied the 48 hour incarceration period may be considered by the Law Division as credit against any sentence he may be given thereby. If you are convicted of DUI you face serious penalties including loss of license for up to 10 years, incarceration for up to 180 days and substantial fines. You should obtain an experienced DUI attorney immediately to help fight your case. For more information about DWI, drug DUI (DUID), controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a motor vehicle, reckless driving, refusal to submit to a breath test or other serious motor vehicle offenses in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

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

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

No Suppression Of Handguns Shown In Video

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

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

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

Sexual Assault Remanded For Consideration Of Mitigating Factors

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