STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DONNELL W. ANCRUM
A-0932-16T2
The court granted the State's leave to appeal from an
illegal sentence. Defendant was charged with second-degree
robbery, second-degree burglary, second-degree aggravated
assault (serious bodily injury) and third-degree aggravated
assault (significant bodily injury). After indicating the
assault charges would merge into the robbery under the facts of
the case and the effect of the mergers would be defendant's
eligibility for special probation, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14 (the
Statute), the judge accepted defendant's guilty pleas to all
four counts of the indictment. At sentencing, over the State's
continued objection, the judge sentenced defendant to special
probation, conditioned on his entry into, and completion of,
Drug Court.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EDWARD HOLLAND
A-0315-15T4
The court examines defendant's challenge to denial of post-
conviction relief because the trial judge had been his attorney
in more than one matter seventeen years earlier. Although the
trial record contained no mention of the judge's prior
representation and does not definitively show the trial judge
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL D. MILLER
A-0459-15T4
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of second-
degree child endangerment for distributing child pornography,
N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b(5)(a), and fourth-degree child endangerment by
possessing child pornography, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4b(5)(b). In
affirming defendant's conviction, we hold that the trial court
did not err in allowing a detective, who was not presented as an
expert witness, to testify as a fact witness regarding his
forensic examination of defendant's computer and defendant's use
of peer-to-peer file sharing programs. In any event, any error
in the admission of the challenged testimony was harmless as the
detective possessed sufficient education, training, and
experience to qualify as an expert in the field of computer
forensics, and defendant was not surprised or prejudiced by the
detective's testimony.
State v. Rodney J. Miles a/k/a Jamal D. Allen
(A-72-15; 077035)
New Jersey now joins the majority of jurisdictions in returning to the Blockburger same-elements test as the sole test for determining what constitutes the “same offense” for purposes of double jeopardy. In the interest of justice, the Court applied both the same- elements test and the now-replaced same-evidence test in this case; going forward, for offenses committed after the issuance of this opinion, the same-elements test will serve as the singular framework for determining whether two charges are the same offense for purposes of double-jeopardy analysis.
State v. Habeeb Robinson (A-40-16; 078900)
Both the trial court and the Appellate Division directed the State to disclose the statements of two eyewitnesses, photos used in the identification process, any incident report of the crime prepared by the police, and a surveillance video. Rule 3:4-2(c)(1)(B) required disclosure of the reports and the photos but not the video. The Court also clarifies and reframes the Rule to help ensure that it strikes the proper balance between two important concerns: a defendant’s liberty interest and the State’s ability to seek to detain high- risk defendants before trial.
J.B./L.A./B.M./W.M./R.L. v. New Jersey State Parole
Board (A-81/82/83-15; 077235)
The Court affirms but modifies the Appellate Division’s opinion. The Court upholds the Parole Board’s use of polygraph testing with the same limitations as the Appellate Division, but adds that the Parole Board’s regulations must be further supplemented to buttress the parolees’ Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination.
State v. Amir Randolph (A-70-15; 076506)
Defendant had automatic standing to challenge the search of the apartment because he was charged with possessory drug offenses and because the State failed to show that the apartment was abandoned or that defendant was a trespasser. Failing to issue the “mere presence” charge was harmless error.
State v. Brian Tier (A-73-15; 077328)
A plain reading of Rule 3:13-3(b)(2)(C) requires
production of witness statements only if those
statements have already been reduced to writing.
Nothing in the rules precludes a trial court from
ordering a defendant to designate witnesses as either
character or fact witnesses, however. The Court
encourages practitioners to participate in cooperative
discovery in order to ease the burden on all parties
involved.
State v. Dion E. Robinson (A-40-15; 076267)
Although the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that there was a weapon in the vehicle, the five officers’ swift and coordinated action eliminated the risk that any of the four occupants would gain immediate access to the weapon. Accordingly, the
protective sweep exception to the warrant requirement
does not govern this case. The community-caretaking
exception to the warrant requirement is irrelevant.
However, the inevitable discovery exception to the
exclusionary rule may be pertinent to this case.