STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PAUL TIMMENDEQUAS (15-11-1377, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-1243-16T2)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PAUL TIMMENDEQUAS (15-11-1377, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-1243-16T2)

The State appeals the dismissal of two counts in the indictment that charged defendant with third-degree failure to register upon relocation as required by Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(a) and (d). When defendant was sentenced in 1999, the penalty imposed was a fourth-degree crime. The Law Division judge held the increased penalty violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the federal and state constitutions and dismissed those counts without prejudice to the State re-presenting the matter before a grand jury.

The court affirmed, but modified the order under review to permit amendment of the indictment to charge fourth-degree crimes.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARK JACKSON STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMIE MONROE, ET AL. (18-04-0555 AND 18-05-0834, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-0022-18T2/A-2586-18T2)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MARK JACKSON STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMIE MONROE, ET AL. (18-04-0555 AND 18-05-0834, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-0022-18T2/A-2586-18T2)

On leave granted, the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office appealed from the suppression of inmate telephone calls recorded by the Essex County Correctional Facility and the Middlesex County Department of Adult Corrections. The court held that the production of the recordings by the jails pursuant to the authority of grand jury subpoenas served upon them by the Prosecutor's Office did not violate an inmate's reasonable expectation of privacy, as they were advised at the beginning of every phone call that the conversations would be monitored and recorded. The court further held that the investigation and process did not violate the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -37, Title III of the Federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520, and Article I Paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. The Act and Title III were not implicated by the sharing of the lawfully obtained information for lawful purposes by law enforcement agencies.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SUI KAM TUNG (13-06-0793, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-3692-15T1)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SUI KAM TUNG (13-06-0793, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-3692-15T1)

The court reverses defendant's conviction after trial for murder of his estranged wife's lover. The court determines that testimony and an unabridged audiotape of defendant's invocation of the right to counsel, his refusal to consent to a search of his computer and car, and the interrogating officer's opinion that defendant was lying cumulatively constitute plain error. The court relies on federal and out-of-state case law to decide that a refusal of consent to search is inadmissible in these circumstances. Given the paucity of direct evidence of defendant's guilt, this improperly admitted evidence undermines the integrity of the verdict.

State v. James Hemenway (081206)(Middlesex County and Statewide) (A-19-18; 080562)

State v. James Hemenway (081206)(Middlesex County and Statewide) (A-19-18; 080562)

The beneficent goal of protecting domestic violence victims must be accomplished while abiding by well-established constitutional norms. Before issuing a warrant to search for weapons under the Act, a court must find that there is (1) probable cause to believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed by the defendant; (2) probable cause to believe that a search for and seizure of weapons is necessary to protect the life, health or well-being of a victim on whose behalf the relief is sought; and (3) probable cause to believe that the weapons are located in the place to be searched. Transposed into the context of a domestic violence search warrant for weapons, probable cause requires that the issuing court only have a well-grounded susp

State v. Kwesi Green (080562) (Essex County and Statewide) (A-56/57-

State v. Kwesi Green (080562) (Essex County and Statewide) (A-56/57-17; 080562)

Under the circumstances, the trial court properly suppressed the identification in this case. The Court proposes revisions to Rule 3:11 to offer clearer guidance on which photos officials should preserve when they use an electronic database. In addition, to guard against misidentification, the Court places on the State the obligation to show that an eyewitness was not exposed to multiple photos or viewings of the same suspect.

State v. L.H. (079974)(Essex County and Statewide) (A-59-17; 0

State v. L.H. (079974)(Essex County and Statewide) (A-59-17; 079974)

The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, under the totality of the circumstances, defendant’s statement was voluntary. Defendant may withdraw his guilty plea. The failure to record the identification procedure as required by Delgado requires a remand to allow defendant the benefit of a hearing to inquire into the reliability of the identification and any other remedy deemed appropriate by the trial court.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SUI KAM TUNG (13-06-0793, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-3692-15T1)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SUI KAM TUNG (13-06-0793, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-3692-15T1)

The court reverses defendant's conviction after trial for murder of his estranged wife's lover. The court determines that testimony and an unabridged audiotape of defendant's invocation of the right to counsel, his refusal to consent to a search of his computer and car, and the interrogating officer's opinion that defendant was lying cumulatively constitute plain error. The court relies on federal and out-of-state case law to decide that a refusal of consent to search is inadmissible in these circumstances. Given the paucity of direct evidence of defendant's guilt, this improperly admitted evidence undermines the integrity of the verdict.