Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
5,442 results
0.80s
State of New Jersey v. Robert J. Mack
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 13, 2024
These materials were clearly relevant to the child pornography charges. The laptop was also essential to explain the origins of all three charges against defendant. … Contrary to defendant's repeated argument, "[c]harges need not be identical to qualify as 'similar' for purposes of joinder." State v. Sterling, 215 N.J. 65, 91 (2013).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HASSON K. RICH (16-03-0832 AND 16-03-0833, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2019
At trial, a qualified expert in the field of ballistics testified that the gun was operable. … Defendant made no showing that Williams' defenses were antagonistic to his defenses, nor did defendant establish that a joint trial would be unfairly prejudicial.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 5, 2021
Id. at 151; see also N.J.S.A. 30:4C- 15.1(a) (establishing that termination proceedings are to be determined on the grounds of what is in the child's best interests). … Such statements do not qualify as clear and unequivocal invocations of the right to self-representation.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 13, 2025
Defendant did not testify but presented testimony from Barbara Wolf, M.D., who was qualified as an expert in the field of forensic pathology, and testified about the photos that B.H. took of her back. … Finally, defendant claims these above-mentioned errors, viewed together, establish trial counsel's ineffectiveness.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished432 N.J. Super. 326 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Aug 26, 2013
Under the circumstances, the record fails to establish that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel at trial. … It is well-established that access to witness testimony falls within this constitutional guarantee.
Cited 3 timesPublishedCAROLYN GILBERT-LEE VS. VANDELL D. LEE (FM-17-0103-14, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 8, 2019
PER CURIAM In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, plaintiff Carolyn Gilbert-Lee appeals from an October 27, 2017 order of the Family Part vacating the previously entered October 11, 2016 Qualified Domestic … To date, he has not established the premarital balance of the plan.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. CRAIG A. SCOTT (08-04-1209, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 9, 2020
To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that: "(1) [T]he prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence is favorable to the defense; and (3) the evidence is material." … As to this evidence, it does not qualify as newly discovered evidence upon which a new trial should be granted.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 12, 2018
The harm may be established by "a delay in establishing a stable and permanent home . . . ." DMH, 161 N.J. at 383. … The judge concluded the first prong was established because the child was harmed by E.W.'
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 28, 2019
Defendant also cannot establish a fundamental injustice would occur if the time-bar is enforced. … When defendant pled guilty, he was clearly advised that he was pleading guilty to four separate crimes. Indeed, defendant reviewed and signed four separate plea forms.
Cited 0 timesUnpublished376 N.J. Super. 451 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Apr 15, 2005
The State claims R.B. qualifies as "any person," and his conduct resulting in his conviction for count three of the federal indictment constituted abuse and cruelty of the two seventeen-year-old boys, satisfying the criminal … As long as an overlapping criminal provision "clearly define[s] the conduct prohibited and the punishment authorized, the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause are satisfied." United States v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDRES I. CHAVARRIA (18-10-0303 AND 18-10-0304, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jun 4, 2020
Measured against those standards, the custodial portion of defendant's sentence, including imposition of the period of parole ineligibility, falls within the imprisonment authorized by N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2(b)(2) and clearly … First, the Court in Yarbough established the factors a trial court must consider in determining whether to impose consecutive sentences. 100 N.J. at 643-44.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMICHAEL O'CONNOR VS. ZOHRA, LLC (L-3951-16, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · May 3, 2021
The judge concluded that the Luu report was net opinion and inadmissible to establish a theory of liability as to Schumacher. … Div. 2008) (holding that a coverage exclusion for personal injury to an "employee of any insured" clearly barred coverage for the claims of workers who sustained injuries during demolition work at a worksite).
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 1, 2020
Here, the record indicated Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and New Jersey did not qualify as Jason's home state in accordance with the statute. … Because Daniel never raised this issue before the trial judge, we review this argument for plain error "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSE TEPANECATLTEPALE (16-07-0592, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 19, 2019
We concluded the "evidence would be entirely insufficient to establish the extremely high level of intoxication required by the [c]ourt to qualify as a defense as well as to create a jury question on defendant's intoxication … Thus, the jury was clearly informed as to the distinction between evidence and argument.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedRobert Cauvin v. Board of Education of the Township of North Brunswick
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 3, 2026
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1 clearly states that a school district "shall not employ . . . any teaching staff member" who is disqualified because of a criminal record. … The Legislature's purpose in establishing disqualifying offenses is to protect school "children under the age of 18." N.J.S.A. 18A:6-7.1.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Mar 5, 2019
See N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 (establishing the OAL for independent review of contested administrative matters); see also N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10 (establishing procedures for review by ALJs). … Div. 1985) (noting that typically, a party claiming to be eligible for a benefit must establish that he meets the qualifying criteria); see also Francois v. Bd. of Trs., Pub. Emps.' Ret. Sys., 415 N.J.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedSTATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. D.F.W. (20-01-0101, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jul 22, 2021
The Act establishes the 180-day clock for every case. … And the 180-day clock qualifies a defendant for release only if it expires before commencement of trial. B.
Cited 0 timesPublishedNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Oct 26, 2021
purpose of providing necessary medical services for both the indigent and the elderly, a related goal of the MCCA is to preclude couples who possessed substantial resources from qualifying … I think we did establish in the beginning of this hearing that there's no legal authority that addresses on point either way, that has to be the same form or non-form, there's
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCELESTE A. LAMPLEY VS. BOARD OF REVIEW (BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Feb 21, 2019
The burden of proof rests on Lampley to establish her right to unemployment compensation without a pension offset. See id. at 218. … N.J.S.A. 43:21-5a(b) deals with the situation A-2047-17T1 7 where an individual who qualifies for unemployment
Cited 0 timesUnpublished389 N.J. Super. 302 · New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · Jan 24, 2006
Although defendant did not affirmatively claim “accident” or “mistake,” that her actions were accidental or mistaken was clearly implied. … Instead, it was designed to establish that Patten did not know all there was to know about defendant’s character for truthfulness. There is no support for this proposition in the record.
Reversed on other grounds by State v. Blakney, 189 N.J. 88 (2006)Cited 4 timesPublished
Ask Donna