STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ELEX HYMAN A-3741-13T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ELEX HYMAN 

A-3741-13T3 

The principal issue in this appeal from drug-related convictions was whether it was error to admit as lay opinion testimony under N.J.R.E. 701 the lead investigative detective's interpretation of drug-related slang and code words that defendant and others used in wiretapped conversations. The court concludes that the detective, who did not converse with the speakers, offered an expert opinion based on his training and experience. However, the court rejects defendant's argument that even as an expert, the detective was not permitted to opine about the meaning of words as defendant used them. The court also rejects the suggestion that investigative detectives are categorically barred from testifying as experts. Inasmuch as the State established the detective's qualifications as an expert, and in light of the other evidence of defendant's guilt, the court concludes that the mistaken admission of the detective's testimony as lay opinion was harmless. 

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF D.M. A-0216-15T2

STATE IN THE INTEREST OF D.M.
          A-0216-15T2

In this juvenile delinquency case where a fourteen year old was charged with aggravated sexual assault of an eleven-year-old child, neither penetration nor coercion was found by the trial judge, who nonetheless convicted the juvenile of endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). The Legislature expressly stated its intent not to criminalize sexual contact between children less than four years apart in age absent either penetration or coercion. To the extent that the child endangerment statute might nonetheless be thought to include behavior of the nature found by the judge in this case, ambiguity in the construction of the statute must be resolved in favor of the juvenile both because the specific statute trumps the general statute and because ambiguous criminal statutes must be interpreted favorably to the accused. 

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THE ARREST/CHARGE RECORDS OF T.B./J.N.-T./ R.C. A-1516-16T1/A-1517

 IN THE MATTER OF THE EXPUNGEMENT OF THE ARREST/CHARGE 

RECORDS OF T.B./J.N.-T./ R.C. 

A-1516-16T1/A-1517-16T1/A-1518-16T1(CONSOLIDATED) 

The court considers whether Drug Court graduates seeking to expunge their criminal records pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(m) — the "Drug Court expungement statute," L. 2015, c. 261, §1 — must make a "public interest" showing as N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(c)(3) requires for the expungement of certain third- and fourth-degree drug offenses. Based on the statute's plain language and legislative history, the court concludes that N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(m)(2) imports the public interest requirement under N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(c)(3). The court therefore vacates orders expunging the three applicants' criminal records and remands for application of the public interest test in light of In re Kollman, 210 N.J. 557 (2012), which applied the test to an expungement petition under Chapter 52. 

State v. Amed Ingram (A-56-16; 079079)

State v. Amed Ingram 

(A-56-16; 079079) 

Neither the statute’s plain language nor principles of due process require the State to present testimony from a live witness at every detention hearing. Instead, the State may proceed by proffer to try to satisfy its burden of proof and show that detention is warranted. Trial judges, however, retain discretion to require direct testimony when they are dissatisfied with the State’s proffer.