STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IAN W. MARIAS (18-12-3840, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2145-19T1)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IAN W. MARIAS (18-12-3840, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2145-19T1)

This court granted the State leave to appeal in this pending criminal case to address the grading aspects of the money laundering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-23 to -29. The core and unresolved legal question is the meaning of the term "amount involved" in N.J.S.A. 2C:21-27, which calibrates the severity of the offense.

Specifically, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-27(a) prescribes that a defendant commits a first-degree money laundering offense if the "amount involved" is $500,000 or more. The crime is a second-degree offense if the "amount involved" is under $500,000 but equal to or more than $75,000. Lastly, it is a third-degree offense if the "amount involved" is under $75,000

As this opinion explains, this court holds that where, as here, a defendant is charged with engaging in a money laundering transaction prohibited by N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25(b), the "amount involved" is the fair market value of the property transferred in that transaction and any other transactions conducted as part of that common scheme. That fair market value is to be determined by the trier of fact. The value is not necessarily equal to or limited by the sum that the money launderer received in the illicit transaction(s). However, the court rejects the prosecutor’s argument that the “amount involved” in a case charged under the “transactional” provision of the money laundering statute includes the value of unsold stolen goods that were not part of a laundering transaction.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DERRICK LAWRENCE (17-07-0930 AND 17-07-0931, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2919-18T2)

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DERRICK LAWRENCE (17-07-0930 AND 17-07-0931, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-2919-18T2)

Defendant was confined to the Bergen County Jail work release program for failure to pay child support. He was released to search for work and twice failed to return to jail on a timely basis resulting in his indictment, subsequent plea, and sentence on two counts of third-degree escape, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5(a).

On this appeal, from a denial of defendant's PCR petition, the court reverses and holds that because a child support contempt proceeding is "essentially a civil proceeding," see Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 140 (2006), defendant could not be charged with the criminal offense of escape, and the PCR court erred as a matter of law.

State v. Quashawn K. Jones (081862) (Atlantic County & Statewide) (A-64-18; 081862)

State v. Quashawn K. Jones (081862) (Atlantic County & Statewide) (A-64-18; 081862)

Although the facts lie at the outer edges of what is sufficient to show a substantial step based on verbal acts, when defendant’s statements on the recorded conversations are considered in the context of this case, the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find a substantial step for attempted murder.

Domestic violence act applied to person who sent over 1,000 texts. C.C. VS. J.A.H. (FV-04-2424-19, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-4425-18T3)

Domestic violence act applied to person who sent over 1,000 texts. C.C. VS. J.A.H. (FV-04-2424-19, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-4425-18T3)

In this case of first impression, the court examines the meaning of a "dating relationship" under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, where the parties never experienced a traditional, in-person "date." Instead, their relationship was demonstrated by the intensity and content of their communications, including the exchange of nearly 1300 highly personal text messages.

Acknowledging the prevalence of virtual communications in today's society, especially in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court recognized text messaging and other forms of electronic communication enable rapid yet deep interactions at all hours. Those communications can form bonds that may be no less intimate than traditional dating activities.

The court concluded the proliferate and exceedingly intimate communications between the parties in the present matter constituted a dating relationship within the meaning of the Act and supported entry of the final restraining order.

State v. R.Y. (081706) (Ocean County & Statewide) (A-60-18;

State v. R.Y. (081706) (Ocean County & Statewide) (A-60-18; 081706)

The caseworker’s testimony regarding Sharie’s statement is clear evidence of third-party guilt and was therefore impermissibly excluded at trial. As such, the Court reverses the judgment of the Appellate Division and vacates defendant’s convictions for crimes against Sharie. However, the State’s leading questions were appropriate for the child victim witnesses, and defendant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive with respect to the convictions for crimes against Brianna. The Court finds no reason to disturb defendant’s convictions or sentence as to his offenses against Brianna.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. R.K. (99-08-0439

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. R.K. (99-08-0439 AND 12-05-0377, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)(A-2022-18T2/A-2024-18T2)

In these consolidated appeals, the court is asked to determine whether two sentences imposed on convicted sexual offender R.K. for violating a New Jersey Parole Board regulation imposing a Community Supervision for Life (CSL) condition banning the use of the Internet to access social media are unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. The trial judge denied R.K.'s motions to correct his illegal sentences finding the ban did not violate his constitutional rights of free speech. Because the court concludes the blanket social media prohibition is both unconstitutional on its face based on Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017), and as applied to R.K. based on J.I. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 228 N.J. 204 (2017) and K.G. v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 458 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2019), the trial court's rulings are reversed, and the court remands for: (1) resentencing to remove the 2007 CSL condition prohibiting R.K. from accessing social networking on the Internet without the express authorization of the District Parole Supervisor; and (2) allowing R.K. to withdraw his September 2012 guilty plea for violating the terms of his CSL condition prohibiting him from accessing social networking.