New Jersey Criminal Law
Dismissal of Stale Complaints – New Court Rule 7:8-5(c)
Rule 7:8-5(c) – Dismissal of minor matters more than 10 years old – effective January 1, 2020 7:8-5(c) – Periodic Dismissal of Certain Municipal Court Complaints. At least annually, after notice to the prosecutor and pursuant to procedures promulgated by the Administrative Director of the Courts, the court shall dismiss all eligible complaints that are…
Read MoreJAMES MCLEAN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM
JAMES MCLEAN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. This case addresses, in very simple terms, the review process that the Board of Pensions will make regarding an agency decision and a claim against the pension system. In this specific case a public employee, Department of Corrections…
Read MoreNew Jersey Appellate Division decision October 24, 2019 what are the police allowed to do with a narcotic dog and searching a vehicle?
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. This case is an Extension of the New Jersey Supreme Court decisions and Witt and Dunbar. The court here found the trial judge made an error of law when he opined that the hit by a narcotics dog required the police to obtain a search warrant to…
Read MoreWeiner 1961 discussion: Can Manslaughter be considered a moral turpitude if…
Weiner 1961 discussion: Can Manslaughter considered a moral turpitude violation when it involves ‘the absence of intent’ and is defined as criminal negligence… or rather ‘knew or should have known’ awareness of a risk of injury or death…… Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. What is “moral turpitude”? It has been defined as…
Read MoreMoral Turpitude…. What is it???
STEVE JONES, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, POLICE AND FIREMEN’S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, October 18, 2019 New Jersey Appellate Division NOT Approved for Publication Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. This case involves a Millville police officer applying for a accidental disability pension which was denied due to several reasons. However, the court undertook a review of…
Read MoreBuccal Swab to match Handgun DNA | Summary: State v. Browne
State v. Browne Docket No. A-0371-17T1 Issue: The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in granting the State’s pretrial application to obtain a buccal swab from the defendant to extract a sample of his DNA. Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. Facts: At approximately 1:00 a.m. on April 19,…
Read MoreNew Jersey vs. Bing PTI Rejection Review
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM S. BING, SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark Decided September 16, 2019 Issue: Defendant appeals the denial of his pretrial intervention (PTI) application. Finding no ground that would permit judicial intervention into that prosecutorial determination, we affirm. Facts: Defendant was indicted…
Read MoreState v. Satoris NJ Appellate Division September 14, 2019 Power of the Trial Court
State v. Satoris Appellate Division September 14, 2019 Appeal from Gloucester County Law Division Appeal from a trial court determination —— Evidence dicition by the Trial Judge Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. All trial courts are vested with broad discretion in determining whether proffered evidence is relevant, and if so, whether it should…
Read MoreMurphy seeks to influence gun policy with ‘power of the purse strings’
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark. MORRISTOWN — Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration plans to use the “power of the purse strings” to advocate for stricter gun policies not just in New Jersey, but nationally. Murphy on Tuesday signed an executive order that will govern how New Jersey does business with firearms retailers and…
Read MoreWhat is the prosecutor’s power for a PTI denial?
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, v. LEVAR MARTINBOROUGH, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not “constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.” Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.…
Read More