State v. Larry R. Henderson

01-07-08 A-2921-04T4

In this appeal, the court reversed the denial of
defendant's motion to suppress an out-of-court identification
because the Attorney General's "Guidelines for Preparing and
Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures" were
materially breached by the investigating officers' intrusion
into an eyewitness's examination of a photographic array. The
court concluded that this breach of the guidelines gave rise to
a presumption of impermissible suggestiveness and required that
a new Wade hearing regarding the reliability of the
identification be conducted.

State v. Kelvis Calcano

12-20-07 A-3579-06T1

In this bail forfeiture case, the trial court did not abuse
its discretion when it continued defendant's bail although
defendant had lost contact with the surety for a period of time
and thereafter faced a mandatory prison sentence after pleading
guilty. As a result, bail was properly forfeited when defendant
failed to appear at sentencing.

State v. Brandon Krause

12-17-07 A-3737-06T5

Based on defendant's failure to meet his burden of proving
facts that would establish that the Hackettstown noise ordinance
was preempted by the Noise Control Act of 1971, N.J.S.A. 13:1G-1
to -23, the ordinance was held valid and the conviction
affirmed. However, the opinion noted that local noise
ordinances may require DEP approval to be enforceable at least
with respect to certain facilities, such as commercial and
industrial sites.

State v. Lateef J. Colley

12-14-07 A-3347-06T5

A prior conviction in another state for conduct equivalent
to that proscribed by N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 subjects the defendant to
the enhanced penalty provision set by N.J.S.A. 39:3-40f(2) upon
a subsequent conviction in this state.

State v. J.J.

12-11-07 A-2777-05T5

When, as part of a guilty plea, defendant is subject to
community supervision under Megan's Law, the court must ensure
that defendant understands the particular consequences of such
supervision. In this case, defendant was not informed that
Megan's Law would prevent him from living with his new wife and
her child. Therefore, defendant should have been allowed to
withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial on all the charges
contained in the indictments.

State v. Roger Emmons

12-07-07 A-5689-05T1

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-7, which proscribes a defendant's failure to
appear either in court or for service of a sentence, is
constitutional. Although a jury instruction in the language of
the second sentence of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-7 would impose an
unconstitutional burden upon a defendant to disprove the
"knowing" mental culpability element of the offense, this
constitutional defect can be avoided by a jury instruction that
omits any reference to a defendant having the burden to prove
that his failure to appear was "not knowingly."

State v. Daniel Luna

12-19-07 (A-68-06)

It is not possible to infer that defendant knowingly waived his
right to be present at trial because the trial court did not
conduct an inquiry to determine whether defendant willingly
absented himself. For that reason, defendant’s convictions must
be reversed.

State v. Stacey Froland-Kindt

12-12-07 (A-8-06)
A person who acts with the permission of a parent is not guilty
of non-consent kidnapping unless the person uses force, threat
or deception.

State v. Ambrose Harris

12-4-07 (A-95-06)

Defendant Ambrose Harris is not entitled to any relief under
State v. DiFrisco. His petition for post-conviction relief is
denied. To the extent that Harris seeks an extension of
DiFrisco, the application also is denied.