06-12-09 STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. JEREMIAH HUPKA
A-4882-07T4
Defendant, a sheriff's officer and part-time municipal
police officer, pled guilty to fourth-degree criminal sexual
contact. As part of his plea bargain with the State, he
consented to the forfeiture of his current positions, and
further agreed not to seek any employment in law enforcement in
the future. However, the plea bargain reserved the issue of
whether an order of permanent future forfeiture of all public
employment, N.J.S.A. 2C:51-2(d), should be entered, pending
further briefing and argument by the parties. The judge
subsequently entered an order barring defendant from all future
public employment, finding defendant's offense "involv[ed] or
touch[ed] on" his official positions.
We reversed, concluding that under the circumstances
presented, defendant's offense was not "related directly to
[his] performance in, or circumstances flowing from, [his]
specific public office[s][.]" Ibid. Therefore, forfeiture of
all future public employment was not appropriately ordered.
In her dissent, Judge Lihotz concludes that under the
circumstances presented, the offense required forfeiture of all
future public employment under the statute.
Richard Sadowski
Assistant Editor
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
6-15-09 State v. Baum and Moore (A-44-07)
6-15-09 State v. Angela Baum and Jermel Moore (A-44-07)
Defendant Jermel Moore’s motion to suppress evidence found
during a warrantless search of the vehicle in which he was
riding should have been denied because he did not have standing
to argue that the driver’s right against self-incrimination was
violated and because the search was not unreasonable.
Richard Sadowski
Assistant Editor
Defendant Jermel Moore’s motion to suppress evidence found
during a warrantless search of the vehicle in which he was
riding should have been denied because he did not have standing
to argue that the driver’s right against self-incrimination was
violated and because the search was not unreasonable.
Richard Sadowski
Assistant Editor
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
05-27-09 STATE V. DOCAJ A-4592-06T4
05-27-09 STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. GJELOSH DOCAJ, a/k/a JERRY
DOCAJ, a/k/a JERRY DOCOJ
A-4592-06T4
An isolated error in the model jury charge on
passion/provocation manslaughter was harmless when examined
within both the context of the charge itself and the evidence
and arguments presented at trial.
Richard Sadowski
Assistant Editor
DOCAJ, a/k/a JERRY DOCOJ
A-4592-06T4
An isolated error in the model jury charge on
passion/provocation manslaughter was harmless when examined
within both the context of the charge itself and the evidence
and arguments presented at trial.
Richard Sadowski
Assistant Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)