State OF New Jersey - In the Interest of X.B.

07-31-08 A-3053-06T4

X.B., a juvenile, was arrested for trespassing on public housing property, despite being notified that he was on a list prohibiting him from being on the housing complex property. Following his adjudication as a delinquent, he appealed, arguing his inclusion on the list was unconstitutional as applied to him.

We affirmed the trial court's finding of delinquency and found no constitutional infirmity as applied to him. We did, however, caution public entities who maintain such lists to consider adopting regulations regarding one's placement on and removal from the list and establishing a procedure whereby one can challenge placement on the list.

State v. Nazario Ventura & State v. Leidy Granados

8-5-08 (A-45-07) & (A-74-07)

A motion for remission of forfeited bail is assessed in a fact-sensitive manner, weighing a multitude of factors outlined in State v. Hyers and its progeny. A crucial factor in every bail remission case is whether the defendant remains a fugitive. In each of these cases, there was no abuse of discretion in thedenial of the separate motions to remit the forfeited bail.

State v. Scott E. Schnabel

7-29-08 (A-13-07)

The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) evidence was properly admitted and, in light of that evidence, evidence of third-party sexual abuse should have been admitted.

State of New Jersey v. Joseph M. Bringhurst

07-23-08 A-4302-06T5

We conclude that post-conviction relief (PCR) petitions brought pursuant to State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967, 111 S. Ct. 429, 112 L. Ed.2d 413 (1990), must comply with Rule 7:10-2, and are subject to the five-year limit contained in Rule 7:10-2 (g)(2). However, those time limits may be relaxed to prevent an injustice. Because a Laurick PCR cannot be brought until there is a second or subsequent DWI conviction, the time bar should not mechanically be applied to deny the petition. However, to obtain the benefit of relaxation of the time limit, a defendant must put forth a prima facie case for relief in his petition itself.

In this case, where defendant's prior, uncounseled conviction was allegedly rendered ten years earlier, he failed to put forth a prima facie case for relief in his PCR petition. Therefore, its denial was appropriate.


Editor, Mitch Zuckerman

State v. V.D.

07-23-08 A-2357-06T5

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of the fourth-degree crime of possession of a false document,
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-2.1(d). The trial court placed defendant on probation with the special condition that she notify the Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). We struck that condition. It was not reasonably contemplated by defendant when she pled guilty and, in any event, exceeded the authority of the trial court.

State v. Rambo

07-22-08 A-5923-04T4

Defendant, who admitted shooting and killing his wife, was convicted of murder. The trial court correctly refused to charge passion/provocation manslaughter. Defendant argued he was entitled to a new trial because the Probate Part had refused, under the "Slayer Statutes" to allow him access to funds to retain private counsel of his choice. We did not procedurally have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Probate Part because defendant's appeal was only from the judgment of conviction.

State v. Shariff Ingram

7-21-08 (A-58/59-07)

When a defendant is charged as an accomplice and lesser-included offenses already are charged in an indictment, the trial court comprehensively must charge the jury on the elements both of the lesser-included crimes and of accomplice liability.
Nevertheless, the failure to so separately charge the jury here did not constitute reversible error. The prosecutor did not misstate the applicability of the statutory affirmative defense to felony murder. In these circumstances, it was error for the
trial court to instruct the jury that the defendant’s voluntary absence from the trial could be construed by the jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and that error mandates a new trial.

State v. Darren L. Bradshaw

7-10-08 (A-46-07)

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed, but for different reasons. The trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendant from fully presenting his alibi testimony and the preclusion of that testimony constituted harmful error, requiring a new trial; consequently, the Court need not reach the constitutional issue. At any retrial, the prosecutor should neither argue facts that are not in the record, nor expressly or implicitly vouch for the credibility of the victim.

State v. Janet Gelman, n/k/a Caitlin Ryerson

7-8-08 (A-42-07)

The current N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1 is insolubly ambiguous concerning whether a defendant can be charged with the fourth-degree crime of prostitution based on a prior petty disorderly persons conviction under the predecessor statute. The Court is thus
compelled to apply the doctrine of lenity and dismiss the indictment.

State of New Jersey v. Anthony Gioe, et al.

07-02-08 A-1214-06T5

The novel issue addressed in this appeal is whether a search warrant is invalid where an affiant failed to appear
personally before a municipal court judge as required under Rule 3:5-3(a). We found the "insufficiencies or irregularities" in
the proceedings to obtain the search warrant did not violate defendant's substantive rights, and they did not invalidate the
search warrant that was issued. R. 3:5-7(g). Accordingly, we affirmed the order denying defendant's motion to suppress.

State v. Kenneth Nero

6-30-08 (A-32-07)

To convict a defendant of first-degree robbery involving the threat of the immediate use of a deadly weapon by simulation,
the jury must find that the simulation was undertaken with a purposeful state of mind. The trial court’s jurysufficiently imparted the requisite mental state.


Mitchell Zuckerman - Editor, Criminal Law Blog

State v. Charles S. Thomas

6-26-08 (A-62-07)

The extended-term-sentencing statute provides that a judge must place on the record his or her reasoning for applying an
extended term to a different charge than that sought by the prosecutor. Therefore, this matter must be remanded to the
trial court for an explanation of why it declined to accept the prosecutor’s application to apply an extended term sentence to
the eluding count and instead applied the extended term to the robbery count.

State v. Diara Barden

6-24-08 (A-23-07)

The evidence that defendant sold drugs to the co-defendant over a six-month period prior to the robbery was evidence of other
crimes that was unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded.

State v. Ryan Buda

6-23-08 (A-4/5-07)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the child’s statements to his mother and the DYFS worker were
properly admitted into evidence as “excited utterances” under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(2). The Child’s statements were not testimonial
and, hence, their admission at trial did not run afoul of the Confrontation Clause.

State in the Interest of J.A.

6-23-08 (A-2-07)

The hearsay statements were a narrative of past events and made while neither the declarant nor victim was in imminent danger.
The statements were testimonial and, because the declarant was not produced as a witness or subject to cross-examination, the
admission of the statements violated J.A.’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

State v. James Dorman & State v. William Sweet

6-23-08 (A-1-07) & (A-38-07)

The ampoule testing certificates and the breath testing instrument inspection certificates are hearsay statements
admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Those records also are nontestimonial and thus are admissible under the Confrontation Clause.

State v. Luis Garcia

6-18-08 (A-120-06)

The trial court abused its discretion in not granting an adjournment to enforce the order to produce the defense witness
from a prison. The Court remands the matter to the trial court for a hearing at which defendant will be given the opportunity
to call the witness. At that hearing, if the witness gives testimony that would have been favorable to defendant at his
trial, then defendant will have shown that his constitutional right to compulsory process was violated. In that case, the
trial court must vacate defendant’s convictions and order a new trial.

State v. Tykim Kemp

6-16-07 (A-124-06)

The details of Kemp’s confession to having engaged in a two-day robbery spree were admissible, but the admission of evidence of a prior uncharged robbery involving Kemp was error requiring a retrial.

State v. Franklin Jack Burr, II

6-11-07 (A-36-07)

The proffered expert testimony on defendant’s diagnosis with Asperger’s Disorder was relevant and material to his explanation
of himself and his conduct. Preclusion of that evidence constituted reversible error necessitating a new trial. Also,
if on remand the trial court is faced with a request by the jury for a replay of the videotaped pretrial interview of A.A., the
court first should inquire whether the jury would be satisfied with a readback of the testimony. If the jury persists in its
request for a video playback, then the court must determine whether the jury must also hear a readback of any testimony that
the court concludes is necessary to provide the proper context for the video playback.

State v. Wilberto Rodriguez

6-9-07 (A-25/26-07)

Based on the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, a person who kills in the honest and reasonable belief that the protection of
his own life requires the use of deadly force does not kill recklessly. The State’s failure to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense in repelling his attacker entitles defendant to an exoneration of criminal
liability on the murder, aggravated manslaughter, and manslaughter charges.

State v. Mylee Cottle

5-6-08 (A-111-06)

An attorney has a per se conflict of interest when both the attorney and the client are simultaneously under indictment in
the same county and are being prosecuted by the same prosecutor’s office. Without an informed waiver made in court
and on the record, prejudice will be presumed, rendering the representation ineffective. The undisclosed conflict in this
case denied the juvenile the effective representation of counsel guaranteed to him under Article I, Paragraph 10 of theJersey Constitution and he is entitled to a new trial.

State v. Michael Lisa

4-22-08 (A-12-07)

The grand jury instructions incorporating duty principles from the Restatement of Torts suffered from a fatal flaw that could
have been the substantial motivation for the return of the reckless manslaughter charge, and dismissal was the only correct
course of action under the circumstances.

State v. Shirley Reid

4-21-08 (A-105-06)

Pursuant to Article I, Paragraph 7, of the New Jersey Constitution, the Court holds that citizens have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers. Accordingly, the motion
to suppress by defendant Reid was properly granted because the police used a deficient municipal subpoena. Law enforcement
officials can obtain subscriber information by serving a grand jury subpoena on an Internet service provider without notice to
the subscriber. The State may seek to reacquire the information with a proper grand jury subpoena because records of the
information existed independently of the faulty process used by the police, and the conduct of the police did not affect the
information.

State v. Carlos Feal

4-8-08 (A-16-07)

The holding of Daniels should be given pipeline retroactivity but, in this case, the Daniels violation does not warrant
reversal of Feal’s convictions.

State v. Adams & State v. Comer

3-26-08 (A-103-06) & (A-116-06)

On this record, the Court declines to reevaluate the standards for the admissibility of out-of-court identifications. Under
current standards, there was sufficient credible evidence to affirm the trial court’s decision to admit the identification
testimony. It was not plain error for the trial court to fail to give a cautionary charge on the use of Harrison’s testimony
and guilty plea. Finally, defendants’ presumptive sentences, imposed prior to State v. Natale, do not require remands.

State v. Jane H. Chun, et al.

3-17-08 (A-96-06)

The Court adopts, as modified, the Special Master’s reports and recommendations. Subject to certain conditions, the Court holds
that the Alcotest is scientifically reliable and that its results are admissible in drunk driving prosecutions. The Court
contemporaneously issues an Order vacating its January 10, 2006, stay of drunk driving prosecutions, appeals, and sentencing,
which shall proceed in accordance with the directives set forth therein.

State of New Jersey v. Murray Aikens, et al.

06-30-08 A-2281-07T4

Flight from one state to another constitutes a violation of the Federal Fugitive Act, and United States Marshals are authorized to make a warrantless arrest of a person who they have probable cause to believe has violated that Act.

Mitchell Zuckerman - Editor of NJ Criminal Law Blog

State of New Jersey v. Maribel Rolon, et al.

06-20-08 A-1049-06T4

In this appeal, we reverse defendant's conviction for first-degree robbery and remand for a new trial. Although the jury determined defendant was armed with a deadly weapon——a knife——the court committed reversible error when it instructed:
"defendant's intent with respect to the [knife] is irrelevant."

State of New Jersey v. Jacob Burno-Taylor

06-19-08 A-0265-07T4

Because defendant's right to remain silent was not scrupulously honored, the trial court should have granted defendant's motion to suppress his statement.

State of New Jersey v. Steven R. Fortin

06-04-08 A-3579-07T4

Defendant convicted of capital murder committed in 1994 cannot be sentenced to life-without-parole because at the time of offense the maximum parole ineligibility term was thirty years and under the December 17, 2007 amendments to the murder statute the defendant can no longer present mitigating factors to reduce the sentence to such term if not outweighed by aggravating factors. The State did not advocate trying the matter as a capital case would have been tried to achieve a sentence of life-without-parole. Moreover, the holding is narrow as amendments such as the life-without-parole provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 and No Early Release Act statutes would affect the sentences of capital murders after those statutes took effect.

State of New Jersey v. Sky Atwater, a/k/a Tyrone Johnson

5-21-08 A-3771-04T4

1. Where the jury's repeated questions indicated confusion about the requisite mental state for vehicular homicide, it was not sufficient for the trial court to re-charge the jury on recklessness. Rather, the trial court should have compared recklessness with negligence, in light of the jury's questions. Denial of defendant's request to charge negligence in response to the jury's questions was reversible error.

2. It was reversible error for the trial court to preclude a defendant from cross-examining the State's expert on the coefficient of friction, a factor the expert testified was critical in formulating his opinion on the speed of defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident.

3. The trial court committed plain error when it failed to strike and give a curative instruction for the prosecutor's repeated remarks that overstepped the bounds of propriety and deprived defendant of a fair trial.

4. The trial court's denial of defendant's application to argue negligence in summation under the circumstances of this case contributed to cumulative error.

5. In a vehicular homicide case where there is evidence that defendant may have been impaired by the use of alcohol, but no evidence that he was driving while intoxicated (DWI) under the statutory standard of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, the trial court should instruct the jury on the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) required for a per se DWI.

State of New Jersey v. Philip J. Castagna

05-12-08 A-4402-06T5

In trial of former police chief for arson and conspiracy to murder his wife, fact that the wife obtained a domestic violence temporary restraining order against defendant resulting in his suspension from office deemed admissible under Rule 404(b) on State's theory of motive. Similarly, charges later filed by wife of violation of the TRO and terroristic threats, resulting in conviction on disorderly persons charges and forfeiture of defendant's office, also held admissible as to motive. Jury to receive limiting instructions including an instruction that defendant's conviction on disorderly persons charges was reversed after defendant's indictment on arson and conspiracy charges.

State of New Jersey vs. William Schadewald

05-05-08 A-1191-06T5

1. A defendant convicted of a second or subsequent offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, who seeks a step-down in sentence on the ground that one or more of the prior convictions were uncounseled, pursuant to State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967, 111 S. Ct. 429, 112 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1990), must first petition for postconviction relief (PCR) in the municipal court in which the prior uncounseled conviction occurred.

2. The PCR proceedings in municipal court are governed by Rule 7:10-2(f) and (g).

State of New Jersey v. Brandon Krause

04-17-08 A-3737-06T5

Based on defendant's failure to meet his burden of proving facts that would establish that the Hackettstown noise ordinance was preempted by the Noise Control Act of 1971, N.J.S.A. 13:1G-1 to -23, the ordinance was held valid and the conviction affirmed. However, the opinion noted that local noise ordinances may require DEP approval to be enforceable at least with respect to certain facilities, such as commercial and industrial sites.

State of New Jersey v. James Robinson

04-15-08 A-6381-05T4

In this appeal, we reverse the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in his dwelling. Our decision is grounded exclusively under the rights conferred in Article I, paragraph 7 of the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. In executing a knock-and-announce warrant, the police must give the occupants of the dwelling a reasonable opportunity to respond before resorting to the use of force to gain entry to the residence. Here, the police broke down the entrance door of the dwelling, twenty to thirty seconds after announcing their presence, thus converting the knock-and-announce warrant into a de facto no-knock warrant. Furthermore, the use of a so-called flash bang explosive device by the police was factually unwarranted, and rendered a nullity the warrant's knock-and announce condition imposed by the court.

State of New Jersey v. Forrest M. Baker, Sr.

04-14-08 A-6018-05T4

Defendant, a federal inmate at the Fort Dix Correctional Facility in Wrightstown, was produced for pre-trial appearances and for trial in the Law Division by way of the judge's "order to produce." We concluded that defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to the "anti-shuttling" provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD), N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-4, was properly denied. Because a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not a detainer for IAD purposes, the statute was not triggered and the motion was properly denied.

State of New Jersey v. Brenda Hoffman

03-31-08 State of New Jersey v. Brenda Hoffman
A-6473-06T4

In this appeal, we reverse an order admitting defendant into a Pretrial Intervention program over the prosecutor's objection. We conclude the victims' status as police officers does not eviscerate N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(4), which requires prosecutors to consider "[t]he desire of the complainant or victim to forego prosecution."

State of New Jersey v. Hiram Rodriguez

03-28-08 A-4614-05T4
In this appeal, the court determined that the police
complied with the "reasonable wait time" standard and therefore
did not violate the "knock and announce" rule, which is
incorporated in the Fourth Amendment and Article I, paragraph 7
of the state constitution, when they waited fifteen to twenty
seconds after announcing their presence before entering the
premises.
The State also argued in this appeal that Hudson v.
Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56
(2006), which holds that the Fourth Amendment does not require
application of the exclusionary rule upon a knock and announce
violation, should be followed in determining the appropriate
remedy for a similar violation of our state constitution. Since
the court found no violation, it recognized that it was not
necessary to decide this issue but expressed in dictum its doubt
that Hudson would be followed in determining the remedy
available upon a breach of the state constitutional knock and
announce rule.
Judge Stern filed a concurring opinion.

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice- Forms available

NJSBA Annual Meeting
Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice
Thursday, May 22 2008 

8am - 9:30 am Diamond A

Could not attend? Need forms?
Send email to Kenvnjlaws@verizon.net and advise which form you would like. The form will be sent to you within 2 days, or fax us your email address 732-572-0030 fax

Name ___________________

Email ___________________
An overview of the top 25 municipal court cases of the year and interactive discussion of the most current topics in municipal court.
Speakers: 
Paris P. Eliades, Esq. 
Daggett Kraemer Eliades Kovach & Ursin, Sparta
Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq.

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates,
Edison
Past Chair Municipal Court Section
2005 NJSBA Municipal Court Attorney
of the Year
Editor- NJ Municipal Court Law Review

CD with forms and Materials
provided to all attendees!
02 Lt of rep only.doc
02 DISC.doc
02a DISC to DMV.doc
02d Disc_Complainant.doc
03D Retainer-MUN COURT.doc
04 Hearing notice.doc
100 Cross Exam Q-DWI.doc
AG Guidelines binding.doc
Appeal Fee Bill to Client.doc
atty_guidelines_0505.pdf
Bail reduce Mt.doc
Brief post convict vacate plea.doc
Conditional Discharge Pet Cl.doc
constructive poss.doc
Court cannot handle discovery.doc
Crim interview aba.doc
crim- Specific defenses.doc
Defense Affidavit to Client.doc
DISC to Client from Prosecutor.doc
DUI Motions non disc- jury.doc
DWI- Blood defense brief.doc
DWI- expert letter.doc
DWS Fine reduced parking ticket.doc
Expungement recommend.doc
MIRANDA br.doc
More disc br.doc
Mt for Civil Reservation.doc
Mt forSlap.doc
Mt to be Relieved.doc
Mt- Dismiss No disc mun Pros.doc
Mun Ct Interview.doc
MVC_ DMV - Follow-up Hearing.doc
MVC_ DMV points for Atom.doc
No discovery dismiss Brief.doc
No Show in Court.doc
OBJ TO LAB CERT.doc
OPRA Brief Crim.doc
Order mark try or dismiss.doc
Order to be Relieved.doc
Pros- missing abstract.doc
Refusal Brief wrong statement.doc
Storm Cert priv pros.doc
Sup-Miranda.doc
SUPPRESSION MT.doc
SUPPRESSION BRIEF.doc
Chun discovery brief
www.BeNotGuilty.com

Can’t attend? Need forms?
Send email to Kenvnjlaws@verizon.net and the materials will be sent to you within 2 days, or fax us your email address 732-572-0030 fax

Name ___________________

Email ___________________

Edward Kahler sworn as Cranbury Chief of Police effective June 1, 2008

Edward Kahler sworn as Cranbury Chief of Police effective June 1, 2008
Photo Featured: New Chief Ed Kahler, Lt. Rick Varga; Chief Jay Hansen; Past Prosecutor Kenneth Vercammen

http://www.njlaws.com/cranpolicestation.htm

State v. Mylee Cottle

5-6-08 (A-111-06) State v. Mylee Cottle

An attorney has a per se conflict of interest when both the
attorney and the client are simultaneously under indictment in
the same county and are being prosecuted by the same
prosecutor’s office. Without an informed waiver made in court
and on the record, prejudice will be presumed, rendering the
representation ineffective. The undisclosed conflict in this
case denied the juvenile the effective representation of counsel
guaranteed to him under Article I, Paragraph 10 of the New
Jersey Constitution and he is entitled to a new trial.

State v. Michael Lisa

State v. Michael Lisa 4-22-08 (A-12-07)

The grand jury instructions incorporating duty principles from
the Restatement of Torts suffered from a fatal flaw that could
have been the substantial motivation for the return of the
reckless manslaughter charge, and dismissal was the only correct
course of action under the circumstances.

State v. Shirley Reid

4-21-08 State v. Shirley Reid (A-105-06)

Pursuant to Article I, Paragraph 7, of the New Jersey
Constitution, the Court holds that citizens have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in the subscriber information they
provide to Internet service providers. Accordingly, the motion
to suppress by defendant Reid was properly granted because the
police used a deficient municipal subpoena. Law enforcement
officials can obtain subscriber information by serving a grand
jury subpoena on an Internet service provider without notice to
the subscriber. The State may seek to reacquire the information
with a proper grand jury subpoena because records of the
information existed independently of the faulty process used by
the police, and the conduct of the police did not affect the
information.

State v. Carlos Feal (A-16-07)

State v. Carlos Feal (A-16-07)
4-8-08

The holding of Daniels should be given pipeline retroactivity
but, in this case, the Daniels violation does not warrant
reversal of Feal’s convictions.

5-21-08 State of New Jersey v. Sky Atwater, a/k/a Tyrone
Johnson
A-3771-04T4

1. Where the jury's repeated questions indicated
confusion about the requisite mental state for vehicular
homicide, it was not sufficient for the trial court to re-charge
the jury on recklessness. Rather, the trial court should have
compared recklessness with negligence, in light of the jury's
questions. Denial of defendant's request to charge negligence in
response to the jury's questions was reversible error.

2. It was reversible error for the trial court to
preclude a defendant from cross-examining the State's expert on
the coefficient of friction, a factor the expert testified was
critical in formulating his opinion on the speed of defendant's
vehicle at the time of the accident.

3. The trial court committed plain error when it failed
to strike and give a curative instruction for the prosecutor's
repeated remarks that overstepped the bounds of propriety and
deprived defendant of a fair trial.

4. The trial court's denial of defendant's application to
argue negligence in summation under the circumstances of this
case contributed to cumulative error.

5. In a vehicular homicide case where there is evidence
that defendant may have been impaired by the use of alcohol, but
no evidence that he was driving while intoxicated (DWI) under
the statutory standard of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, the trial court
should instruct the jury on the blood al(BAC) required for a per se DWI.

State of New Jersey v. Philip J. Castagna

State of New Jersey v. Philip J. Castagna 05-12-08
A-4402-06T5

In trial of former police chief for arson and conspiracy to
murder his wife, fact that the wife obtained a domestic violence
temporary restraining order against defendant resulting in his
suspension from office deemed admissible under Rule 404(b) on
State's theory of motive. Similarly, charges later filed by
wife of violation of the TRO and terroristic threats, resulting
in conviction on disorderly persons charges and forfeiture of
defendant's office, also held admissible as to motive. Jury to
receive limiting instructions including an instruction that
defendant's conviction on disorderly persons charges was
reversed after defendant's indictment on arson and conspiracy charges.

Expungement Petition of Robert Ross

In the Matter of the Expungement Petition of Robert Ross
A-0990-07T4
05-06-08

The expungement statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2, permits
expungement of an indictable conviction only if the petitioner
"has not been convicted of any prior or subsequent crime." We
construed the statute and held that if a petitioner commits two
crimes at different times, he is precluded from seeking
expungement even if he is sentenced and convicted for the two crimes on the same day.

State of New Jersey vs. William Schadewald

05-05-08* State of New Jersey vs. William Schadewald
A-1191-06T5

1. A defendant convicted of a second or subsequent
offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI), N.J.S.A. 39:4-50,
who seeks a step-down in sentence on the ground that one or more
of the prior convictions were uncounseled, pursuant to State v.
Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967, 111 S. Ct. 429,
112 L. Ed. 2d 413 (1990), must first petition for post-
conviction relief (PCR) in the municipal court in which the
prior uncounseled conviction occurred.

2. The PCR proceeRule 7:10-2(f) and (g).

Hawthorne PBA Local 200 v. Borough of Hawthorne

04-29-08 Hawthorne PBA Local 200 v. Borough of Hawthorne, et al.
A-4504-06T2

The issue in this appeal is whether, in a mayor-council
form of government under the Faulkner Act, the appointment and
promotion of police officers may be delegated by the Borough
Council to the mayor, whom the council has designated as the
"appropriate authority" pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118, a
general law that addresses the creation and internal structure
of municipal police departments. The Law Division dismissed the
plaintiff's challenge to the ordinance delegating that authority
to the mayor, and we affirmed.

Janon Fisher v. Division of Law

04-28-08 Janon Fisher v. Division of Law
A-2288-06T3; A-2448-06T3

The Division of Law properly calculated the "special
service charge" for responding to a request under the Open
Public Records Act for production of e-mails and computer files
prepared by assistant and deputy attorneys general based on the
time expended by those attorneys in retrieving and reviewing the
requested government records to identify privileged materials.
Where certifications that the Division of Law filed with the
Government Records Council clearly indicate that the redacted
material in documents produced in response to an OPRA request is
privileged, there is no need for a remand for the purpose of
requiring the Division to submit a more specific Vaughn index.

tate of New Jersey v. Brandon Krause

04-17-08 State of New Jersey v. Brandon Krause
A-3737-06T5

Based on defendant's failure to meet his burden of proving
facts that would establish that the Hackettstown noise ordinance
was preempted by the Noise Control Act of 1971, N.J.S.A. 13:1G-1
to -23, the ordinance was held valid and the conviction
affirmed. However, the opinion noted that local noise
ordinances may require DEP approval to be enforceable at least
with respect to certain facilities, such as commercial and
industrial sites.

tate of New Jersey v. James Robinson

04-15-08 State of New Jersey v. James Robinson
A-6381-05T4

In this appeal, we reverse the trial court's denial of
defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in his dwelling.
Our decision is grounded exclusively under the rights conferred
in Article I, paragraph 7 of the Constitution of the State of
New Jersey.

In executing a knock-and-announce warrant, the police must
give the occupants of the dwelling a reasonable opportunity to
respond before resorting to the use of force to gain entry to
the residence. Here, the police broke down the entrance door of
the dwelling, twenty to thirty seconds after announcing their
presence, thus converting the knock-and-announce warrant into a
de facto no-knock warrant. Furthermore, the use of a so-called
flash bang explosive device by the police was factually
unwarranted, and rendered a nullity the warranannounce condition imposed by the court.

State of New Jersey v. Forrest M. Baker, Sr.

04-14-08 State of New Jersey v. Forrest M. Baker, Sr.
A-6018-05T4

Defendant, a federal inmate at the Fort Dix Correctional
Facility in Wrightstown, was produced for pre-trial appearances
and for trial in the Law Division by way of the judge's "order
to produce." We concluded that defendant's pre-trial motion to
dismiss the indictment pursuant to the "anti-shuttling"
provision of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD),
N.J.S.A. 2A:159A-4, was properly denied. Because a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not a detainer for IAD
purposes, the statute was not triggered and the motion was
properly denied.

State of New Jersey v. Brenda Hoffman

03-31-08 State of New Jersey v. Brenda Hoffman
A-6473-06T4

In this appeal, we reverse an order admitting defendant
into a Pretrial Intervention program over the prosecutor's
objection. We conclude the victims' status as police officers
does not eviscerate N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(4), which requires
prosecutors to consider "[t]he desire of the complainant or
victim to forego prosecution."

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice Thursday, May 22 (8 - 9:30 a.m.)

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice Thursday, May 22 (8 - 9:30 a.m.)
NJSBA Annual Meeting and Convention.

NJSBA Annual Meeting and Convention Annual Meeting and Convention 2008 Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort in Atlantic City May 21 - 23. The NJ State Bar Association will hold its 2008 Annual Meeting and Convention at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, right on the Atlantic City Boardwalk. A favorite location for the NJSBA's annual conference, the boardwalk offers the Atlantic City seaside right outside the doors of the resort. Attend from May 21-22 for education, top speakers and networking with the top legal professionals in the state and your fellow NJSBA members.

Hot Topics in Municipal Court Practice Thursday, May 22 (8 - 9:30 a.m.)
Municipal Court Practice Section NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education (Municipal Court Practice Track)

Trial Attorney Certification: 1.5 criminal credits pending
NY CLE (Transitional & Non-transitional): 1.5 professional practice credits
PA CLE: 1.5 substantive credits pending ($8 fee payable to ICLE)
An overview of the top 25 municipal court cases of the year and interactive discussion of the most current topics in municipal court.

Speakers: Paris P. Eliades, Esq. - Daggett Kraemer Eliades Kovach & Ursin, Sparta
Kenneth A. Vercammen, Esq. - Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, Edison

http://www.njsba.com/calendar_events/index.cfm?fuseaction=annual_mtg#207

Alcotest Update - State v. Chun
Municipal Court Practice Section NJ Institute for Continuing Legal Education (Municipal Court Practice Track)

Thursday, May 22 (1 - 2:30 p.m.)

Trial Attorney Certification: 1.5 criminal credits pending
NY CLE (Non-transitional): 1.5 professional practice credits
PA CLE: 1.5 substantive credits pending ($8 fee payable to ICLE)

An analysis of the recent Chun discussion and the documentation required in order to admit the Alcotest 7110 into evidence.

Speaker: Jeffrey E. Gold, Esq. Vice Chair, Municipal Court Practice Section Gold & Farrow, PC, Cherry Hill
KENNETH VERCAMMEN ATTORNEY AT LAW

States can permit Post Conviction Motions in cases before 2004 based on Crawford Hearsay Challenge.

Danforth v. Minnesota 128 S. Ct 1029 (2008)

Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), limits the kinds of constitutional violations that will entitle an individual to federal habeas corpus relief, but does not in any way limit the authority of a state court, when reviewing its own state criminal convictions, to provide a remedy for a violation that is deemed "nonretroactive" under Teague.

State v. Douglas Noble

03-13-08 A-3394-05T4

The State may, consistent with a defendant's right to
remain silent, cross-examine him on the late filing of his alibi
notice when such cross-examination is designed to highlight
inconsistencies between the alibi notice and defendant's
testimony a mere two days later. We conclude that here, where
the cross-examination on the timing of the alibi notice served
to demonstrate the unlikelihood that defendant's recollection of
the facts supporting his alibi defense would change so
significantly in a two-day period, the State's cross-examination
did not constitute a prohibited evisceration of defendant's
right to remain silent. Instead, such cross-examination
constituted a permitted "litigational" use of the late
furnishing of an alibi notice.
03-12-08 State of New Jersey v. Hipolito Ruiz
A-5529-06T4
When a jury acquits a defendant of the sole charge in the
indictment, retrial for a lesser-included offense on which the
jury was deadlocked is not constitutionally barred.

State v. Cadree B. Matthews

03-10-08 A-6040-05T4

An anonymous caller stated that a person in a burgundy
Durango with temporary license plates was flashing a gun at a
certain location late at night. Police proceeded to the scene,
located the vehicle and performed a pat-down search of its three
occupants. The search revealed no weapons. The police then
secured the occupants away from the vehicle and searched the
passenger compartment, finding a handgun beneath the front
passenger seat. While conducting the search, a fourth person,
later identified as the defendant, attempted to get to the
vehicle. When asked to leave the scene, he refused. Defendant
was then arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.
When he was secured in the back of a patrol car, defendant
confessed that the handgun police found in the vehicle belonged
to him. After the denial of a motion to suppress the handgun on
the basis of an illegal search, defendant pled guilty to
unlawful possession of a weapon, resisting arrest, and unlawful
possession of a handgun by certain persons not to have weapons.
We reversed the convictions as to the unlawful possession
of a weapon and certain persons, based upon the illegality of
the search. The search was not justified under Terry v. Ohio
because the anonymous tip, standing alone, did not provide an
independent basis for the stop, frisk of the occupants, or
search of the vehicle.

State v. J.A.

03-06-07 A-2554-05T4

In this appeal from the denial of a post-conviction relief
petition, we hold that the Supreme Court's decision in State v.
P.H., 178 N.J. 378 (2004), that a jury may consider the timing
of a victim's disclosure of sexual abuse in assessing
credibility, and therefore disapproving the contrary holding in
State v. Bethune, 121 N.J. 137 (1990), is not to be given
complete retroactivity to encompass defendant's case on
collateral review, but is limited to pipeline retroactivity
only.

State v. Yusef Allen

03-04-08 A-4685-05T4

On appeal from the denial of defendant's petition for postconviction
relief, the Appellate Division remands for an
evidentiary hearing to determine why defendant declined an offer
for mistrial made by the judge during trial (counsel's statement
during trial that he wasn't doing it for "economic" reasons did
not suffice) and for an evaluation of the credibility of an
individual who gave a post-judgment affidavit exculpating
defendant.

State v. Terrence Echols

02-26-08 A-2377-05T4

In this appeal, the court reversed the denial of
defendant's petition for post-conviction relief, finding
defendant was denied the effective assistance counsel because:
(1) trial counsel failed to fully elicit testimony regarding
defendant's alleged alibi; (2) appellate counsel failed to
pursue on direct appeal the trial judge's refusal to give the
jury an alibi instruction; (3) trial counsel failed to object
and appellate counsel failed to argue on appeal that the
prosecutor's argument in his opening statement -- that the
jurors were safe from defendant and others in the courtroom only
because of the presence of sheriff's officers -- was prejudicial
to his right to a fair trial; and (4) the confluence of these
omissions, in the context of other circumstances, such as the
testimony of witnesses in handcuffs and prison garb, generated a
reasonable doubt about the reliability of the outcome.

State of New Jersey in the Interest of D.Y.

02-04-08 A-0490-07T4

The prosecutor filed a complaint in the Family Part
charging a juvenile with aggravated assault that led to the
victim's death. More than 30 days later, after further
investigation indicated that the juvenile had far greater
responsibility for the death, the prosecutor dismissed the first
complaint and filed a second complaint charging murder. Within
30 days of the second filing, the prosecutor moved for waiver of
the murder complaint to the Law Division, where the juvenile
would be tried as an adult. We reversed the denial of the
prosecutor's motion, holding: (1) the motion was timely because
the 30 time limit of N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26(d) and Rule 5:22-2(a) did
not begin to run on the murder complaint until it was filed; (2)
the development of the additional incriminatory evidence after
the filing of the first complaint provided good cause for an
extension of the 30-day time limit even if that time began to
run from the filing of the first complaint.

State v. Adams

3-26-08 (A-103-06)

On this record, the Court declines to reevaluate the standards
for the admissibility of out-of-court identifications. Under
current standards, there was sufficient credible evidence to
affirm the trial court’s decision to admit the identification
testimony. It was not plain error for the trial court to fail
to give a cautionary charge on the use of Harrison’s testimony
and guilty plea. Finally, defendants’ presumptive sentences,
imposed prior to State v. Natale, do not require remands.

State v. Jane H. Chun

3-17-08 (A-96-06)

The Court adopts, as modified, the Special Master’s reports and
recommendations. Subject to certain conditions, the Court holds
that the Alcotest is scientifically reliable and that its
results are admissible in drunk driving prosecutions. The Court
contemporaneously issues an Order vacating its January 10, 2006,
stay of drunk driving prosecutions, appeals, and sentencing,
which shall proceed in accordance with the directives set forth
therein.

State v. Andre Johnson

2-26-08 (A-81-06)

Defendant has standing under state law to challenge the
warrantless search of the duffel bag in the home in which he was
present, and the fruits of the search are suppressed for failure
to comply with the warrant requirements of Article I, Paragraph
7 of the New Jersey Constitution.

State v. Charles A. Watkins, III

2-21-08 (A-118-06)

Individuals acting alone in furtherance of their own criminal
interests who commit a series of offenses such as thefts or
forgeries are not “part of a continuing business or enterprise”
because they are not part of a larger whole and are not acting
in concert with others.

State v. Sulaiman A. Sloane

2-11-08 (A-40-06)

During a motor vehicle stop, the passenger, like the driver, is
seized under the federal and state constitutions. Police do not
need a reasonable suspicion before they may access the NCIC
database and, because accessing the NCIC database was within the
scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the
stop, there was no basis to suppress the evidence found.

State v. David L. Wilder

1-31-08(A-87-06)

Based on the State’s evidence and giving the State the benefit
of all favorable inferences, a jury reasonably could have
convicted defendant of serious-bodily-injury murder; thus, the
trial court did not err by sending the murder charge to the
jury. The Court rejects continued use of the Christener rule;
overcharging errors must be reviewed under the “unjust result”
standard established in Rule 2:10-2.

State v. William J. Allegro

1-29-08 (A-119-06)

Allegro’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims arising from
defense counsel’s failure to investigate potential witnesses and
to call those witnesses do not satisfy the two-pronged
Strickland/Fritz standard. His claims in respect of counsel’s
ineffectiveness in the plea discussions and negotiations
requires a remand for development of a more comprehensive record
and the PCR court’s conclusions based on that record.
1-28-08 State v. George Jenewicz (A-78-06)
The cumulative impact of the trial court’s preclusion of
testimony from two defense witnesses and the prosecution’s
improper cross-examination of the defense expert and
disparagement of the defense expert during summation prejudiced
the fairness of defendant’s trial and cast doubt on the
propriety of the jury’s verdict, warranting a new trial.

Criminal Mischief

Kenneth Vercammen is the Middlesex County Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year
Criminal Mischief 2C:17-3

Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey.

Criminal Mischief 2C:17-3. a. Offense defined. A person is guilty of criminal mischief if he:

(1)Purposely or knowingly damages tangible property of another or damages tangible property of another recklessly or negligently in the employment of fire, explosives or other dangerous means listed in subsection a. of N.J.S. 2C:17-2; or

(2)Purposely, knowingly or recklessly tampers with tangible property of another so as to endanger person or property.

b. Grading. (1) Criminal mischief is a crime of the third degree if the actor purposely or knowingly causes pecuniary loss of $2,000.00 or more, or a substantial interruption or impairment of public communication, transportation, supply of water, gas or power, or other public service.

(2)Criminal mischief is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor causes pecuniary loss in excess of $500.00. It is a disorderly persons offense if the actor causes pecuniary loss of $500.00 or less.

(3)Criminal mischief is a crime of the third degree if the actor damages, defaces, eradicates, alters, receives, releases or causes the loss of any research property used by the research facility, or otherwise causes physical disruption to the functioning of the research facility. The term "physical disruption" does not include any lawful activity that results from public, governmental, or research facility employee reaction to the disclosure of information about the research facility.

(4)Criminal mischief is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor damages, removes or impairs the operation of any device, including, but not limited to, a sign, signal, light or other equipment, which serves to regulate or ensure the safety of air traffic at any airport, landing field, landing strip, heliport, helistop or any other aviation facility; however, if the damage, removal or impediment of the device recklessly causes bodily injury or damage to property, the actor is guilty of a crime of the third degree, or if it recklessly causes a death, the actor is guilty of a crime of the second degree.

(5)Criminal mischief is a crime of the fourth degree if the actor interferes or tampers with any airport, landing field, landing strip, heliport, helistop or any other aviation facility; however if the interference or tampering with the airport, landing field, landing strip, heliport, helistop or other aviation facility recklessly causes bodily injury or damage to property, the actor is guilty of a crime of the third degree, or if it recklessly causes a death, the actor is guilty of a crime of the second degree.

(6)Criminal mischief is a crime of the third degree if the actor tampers with a grave, crypt, mausoleum or other site where human remains are stored or interred, with the purpose to desecrate, destroy or steal such human remains or any part thereof.

c. A person convicted of an offense of criminal mischief that involves an act of graffiti may, in addition to any other penalty imposed by the court, be required to pay to the owner of the damaged property monetary restitution in the amount of the pecuniary damage caused by the act of graffiti and to perform community service, which shall include removing the graffiti from the property, if appropriate. If community service is ordered, it shall be for either not less than 20 days or not less than the number of days necessary to remove the graffiti from the property.

d. As used in this section:

(1)"Act of graffiti" means the drawing, painting or making of any mark or inscription on public or private real or personal property without the permission of the owner.

(2)"Spray paint" means any paint or pigmented substance that is in an aerosol or similar spray container.

Amended 1979, c.178, s.30; 1981, c.290, s.17; 1991, c.336, s.1, 1995, c.20, s.2; 1995, c.251, s.1; 1998, c.54, s.1; 1999, c.95, s.1.

Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea

1. You will have to appear in open court and tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense(s)

2. Do you understand that if you plead guilty:

a. You will have a criminal record

b. You may go to Jail or Prison.

c. You will have to pay Fines and Court Costs.

3. If you are on Probation, you will have to submit to random drug and urine testing. If you violate Probation, you often go to jail.

4. In indictable matters, you will be required to provide a DNA sample, which could be used by law enforcement for the investigation of criminal activity, and pay for the cost of testing.

5. You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution.

6. If you are a public office holder or employee, you can be required to forfeit your office or job by virtue of your plea of guilty.

7. If you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty.

8. You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense. 2C:52-3

9. You could be put on Probation.

10. In Drug Cases, a mandatory DEDR penalty of $500-$1,000, and lose your driver's license for 6 months - 2years. You must pay a Law Enforcement Officers Training and Equipment Fund penalty of $30.

11. You may be required to do Community Service.

12. You must pay a minimum Violent Crimes Compensation Board assessment of $50 ($100 minimum if you are convicted of a crime of violence) for each count to which you plead guilty.

13. You must pay a $75 Safe Neighborhood Services Fund assessment for each conviction.

14. If you are being sentenced to probation, you must pay a fee of up to $25 per month for the term of probation.

15. You lose the presumption against incarceration in future cases. 2C:44-1

16. You may lose your right to vote.

The defense of a person charged with a criminal offense is not impossible. There are a number of viable defenses and arguments which can be pursued to achieve a successful result. Advocacy, commitment, and persistence are essential to defending a client accused of a criminal offense.

Jail for Crimes and Disorderly Conduct:

If someone pleads Guilty or is found Guilty of a criminal offense, the following is the statutory Prison/Jail terms.

NJSA 2C: 43-8 (1) In the case of a crime of the first degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between 10 years and 20 years;

(2) In the case of a crime of the second degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between five years and 10 years;

(3) In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years;

(4) In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.

2C:43-3 Fines have been increased recently! 2C:43-3. Fines and Restitutions. A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed:

a. (1) $200,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the first degree;

(2) $150,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the second degree;

b. (1) $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree;

(2) $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree;

c. $1,000.00, when the conviction is of a disorderly persons offense;

d. $500.00, when the conviction is of a petty disorderly persons offense;

If facing any criminal charge, retain an experienced attorney immediately to determine you rights and obligations to the court. Current criminal charge researched by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. 732-572-0500




Receive free NJ Laws Email newsletter with current laws and cases


Telephone Consultation Program
New Article of the Week
Meet with an experienced Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office" consultation.
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal, drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. Our office helps people with traffic/ municipal court tickets including drivers charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal and Driving While Suspended.

Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutor's Association.

Criminal and Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have to pay fines in court or receive points on your drivers license. An accumulation of too many points, or certain moving violations may require you to pay expensive surcharges to the N.J. DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] or have your license suspended. Don't give up! The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal motor vehicle violations.

When your job or driver's license is in jeopardy or you are facing thousands of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insurance increases, you need excellent legal representation. The least expensive attorney is not always the answer. Schedule an appointment if you need experienced legal representation in a traffic/municipal court matter.

Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on traffic offenses we can be retained to represent people. Our website also provides details on jail terms for traffic violations and car insurance eligibility points. Car insurance companies increase rates or drop customers based on moving violations.

Contact the Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment.

The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential "in office" consultation.




Tracey Lewis
Assistant Editor

Criminal Attempt

Middlesex County Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year
2C:5-1 Criminal attempt

Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey.

2C:5-1. Criminal attempt a. Definition of attempt. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he:

(1) Purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as a reasonable person would believe them to be;

(2) When causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing such result without further conduct on his part; or

(3) Purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.

b. Conduct which may be held substantial step under subsection a. (3). Conduct shall not be held to constitute a substantial step under subsection a. (3) of this section unless it is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose.

c. Conduct designed to aid another in commission of a crime. A person who engages in conduct designed to aid another to commit a crime which would establish his complicity under section 2C:2-6 if the crime were committed by such other person, is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime, although the crime is not committed or attempted by such other person.

d. Renunciation of criminal purpose. When the actor's conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt under subsection a. (2) or (3) of this section, it is an affirmative defense which he must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he abandoned his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose. The establishment of such defense does not, however, affect the liability of an accomplice who did not join in such abandonment or prevention.

Within the meaning of this chapter, renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary if it is motivated, in whole or in part, by circumstances, not present or apparent at the inception of the actor's course of conduct, which increase the probability of detection or apprehension or which make more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal purpose. Renunciation is not complete if it is motivated by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until a more advantageous time or to transfer the criminal effort to another but similar objective or victim. Renunciation is also not complete if mere abandonment is insufficient to accomplish avoidance of the offense in which case the defendant must have taken further and affirmative steps that prevented the commission thereof.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:5-1, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea

1. You will have to appear in open court and tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense(s)

2. Do you understand that if you plead guilty:

a. You will have a criminal record

b. You may go to Jail or Prison.

c. You will have to pay Fines and Court Costs.

3. If you are on Probation, you will have to submit to random drug and urine testing. If you violate Probation, you often go to jail.

4. In indictable matters, you will be required to provide a DNA sample, which could be used by law enforcement for the investigation of criminal activity, and pay for the cost of testing.

5. You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution.

6. If you are a public office holder or employee, you can be required to forfeit your office or job by virtue of your plea of guilty.

7. If you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty.

8. You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense. 2C:52-3

9. You could be put on Probation.

10. In Drug Cases, a mandatory DEDR penalty of $500-$1,000, and lose your driver's license for 6 months - 2years. You must pay a Law Enforcement Officers Training and Equipment Fund penalty of $30.

11. You may be required to do Community Service.

12. You must pay a minimum Violent Crimes Compensation Board assessment of $50 ($100 minimum if you are convicted of a crime of violence) for each count to which you plead guilty.

13. You must pay a $75 Safe Neighborhood Services Fund assessment for each conviction.

14. If you are being sentenced to probation, you must pay a fee of up to $25 per month for the term of probation.

15. You lose the presumption against incarceration in future cases. 2C:44-1

16. You may lose your right to vote.

The defense of a person charged with a criminal offense is not impossible. There are a number of viable defenses and arguments which can be pursued to achieve a successful result. Advocacy, commitment, and persistence are essential to defending a client accused of a criminal offense.

Jail for Crimes and Disorderly Conduct:

If someone pleads Guilty or is found Guilty of a criminal offense, the following is the statutory Prison/Jail terms.

NJSA 2C: 43-8 (1) In the case of a crime of the first degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between 10 years and 20 years;

(2) In the case of a crime of the second degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between five years and 10 years;

(3) In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years;

(4) In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.

2C:43-3 Fines have been increased recently! 2C:43-3. Fines and Restitutions. A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed:

a. (1) $200,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the first degree;

(2) $150,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the second degree;

b. (1) $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree;

(2) $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree;

c. $1,000.00, when the conviction is of a disorderly persons offense;

d. $500.00, when the conviction is of a petty disorderly persons offense;

If facing any criminal charge, retain an experienced attorney immediately to determine you rights and obligations to the court. Current criminal charge researched by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. 732-572-0500




Receive free NJ Laws Email newsletter with current laws and cases


Telephone Consultation Program
New Article of the Week
Meet with an experienced Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office" consultation.
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal, drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. Our office helps people with traffic/ municipal court tickets including drivers charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal and Driving While Suspended.

Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutor's Association.

Criminal and Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have to pay fines in court or receive points on your drivers license. An accumulation of too many points, or certain moving violations may require you to pay expensive surcharges to the N.J. DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] or have your license suspended. Don't give up! The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal motor vehicle violations.

When your job or driver's license is in jeopardy or you are facing thousands of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insurance increases, you need excellent legal representation. The least expensive attorney is not always the answer. Schedule an appointment if you need experienced legal representation in a traffic/municipal court matter.

Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on traffic offenses we can be retained to represent people. Our website also provides details on jail terms for traffic violations and car insurance eligibility points. Car insurance companies increase rates or drop customers based on moving violations.

Contact the Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment.

The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential "in office" consultation.


Tracey Lewis
Assistant Editor

Contempt 2C:29-9

Kenneth Vercammen is the Middlesex County Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year
2C:29-9. Contempt

Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey.

Criminal charges can cost you. If convicted, you can face prison, fines, jail, Probation over 18 months and other penalties. Don't give up! Our Law Office can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal violations. Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on criminal offenses we can be retained to represent people.

2C:29-9. Contempt. a. A person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if he purposely or knowingly disobeys a judicial order or hinders, obstructs or impedes the effectuation of a judicial order or the exercise of jurisdiction over any person, thing or controversy by a court, administrative body or investigative entity.

b. Except as provided below, a person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if that person purposely or knowingly violates any provision in an order entered under the provisions of the "Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991," P.L. 1991, c.261 (C. 2C:25-17 et al.) when the conduct which constitutes the violation could also constitute a crime or a disorderly persons offense. In all other cases a person is guilty of a disorderly persons offense if that person knowingly violates an order entered under the provisions of this act. Orders entered pursuant to paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (8) and (9) of subsection b. of section 13 of P.L. 1991, c.261 (C. 2C:25-29) shall be excluded from the provisions of this subsection.

CONCLUSION

If charged with any criminal offense, immediately schedule an appointment with a criminal trial attorney. Don't rely on a real estate attorney, public defender or a family member who took a law class in school. When your life and job is on the line, hire the best attorney available.

KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC ATTORNEY AT LAW 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817 (Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030 TRIAL AND LITIGATION EXPERIENCE In his private practice, he has devoted a substantial portion of his professional time to the preparation and trial of litigated matters. He appears in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week on many personal injury matters, Criminal and Municipal/ traffic Court trials, Probate hearings, and contested administrative law hearings.

Mr. Vercammen served as the Prosecutor for the Township of Cranbury, Middlesex County and was involved in trials on a weekly basis. He also argued all pre-trial motions and post-trial applications on behalf of the State of New Jersey. He has also served as a Special Acting Prosecutor in Woodbridge, Perth Amboy, Hightstown, Carteret, East Brunswick, Jamesburg, South Brunswick, South River and South Plainfield for conflict cases. Since 1989, he has personally handled hundreds of criminal and motor vehicle matters as a Prosecutor and now as defense counsel and has had substantial success. Previously, Mr. Vercammen was Public Defender for the Township of Edison and Borough of Metuchen and a Designated Counsel for the Middlesex County Public Defender's Office. He represented indigent individuals facing consequences of magnitude. He was in Court trying cases and making motions in difficult criminal and DWI matters. Every case he personally handled and prepared. His resume sets forth the numerous bar associations and activities which demonstrate his commitment to the legal profession and providing quality representation to clients. Since 1985, his primary concentration has been on litigation matters. Mr. Vercammen gained other legal experiences as the Confidential Law Clerk to the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Supreme Court) with the Delaware County, PA District Attorney Office handling Probable Cause Hearings, Middlesex County Probation Department as a Probation Officer, and an Executive Assistant to Scranton District Magistrate, Thomas Hart, in Scranton, PA.

Consequences of a Criminal Guilty Plea

1. You will have to appear in open court and tell the judge what you did that makes you guilty of the particular offense(s)

2. Do you understand that if you plead guilty:

a. You will have a criminal record

b. You may go to Jail or Prison.

c. You will have to pay Fines and Court Costs.

3. If you are on Probation, you will have to submit to random drug and urine testing. If you violate Probation, you often go to jail.

4. In indictable matters, you will be required to provide a DNA sample, which could be used by law enforcement for the investigation of criminal activity, and pay for the cost of testing.

5. You must pay restitution if the court finds there is a victim who has suffered a loss and if the court finds that you are able or will be able in the future to pay restitution.

6. If you are a public office holder or employee, you can be required to forfeit your office or job by virtue of your plea of guilty.

7. If you are not a United States citizen or national, you may be deported by virtue of your plea of guilty.

8. You must wait 5-10 years to expunge a first offense. 2C:52-3

9. You could be put on Probation.

10. In Drug Cases, a mandatory DEDR penalty of $500-$1,000, and lose your driver's license for 6 months - 2years. You must pay a Law Enforcement Officers Training and Equipment Fund penalty of $30.

11. You may be required to do Community Service.

12. You must pay a minimum Violent Crimes Compensation Board assessment of $50 ($100 minimum if you are convicted of a crime of violence) for each count to which you plead guilty.

13. You must pay a $75 Safe Neighborhood Services Fund assessment for each conviction.

14. If you are being sentenced to probation, you must pay a fee of up to $25 per month for the term of probation.

15. You lose the presumption against incarceration in future cases. 2C:44-1

16. You may lose your right to vote.

The defense of a person charged with a criminal offense is not impossible. There are a number of viable defenses and arguments which can be pursued to achieve a successful result. Advocacy, commitment, and persistence are essential to defending a client accused of a criminal offense.

Jail for Crimes and Disorderly Conduct:

If someone pleads Guilty or is found Guilty of a criminal offense, the following is the statutory Prison/Jail terms.

NJSA 2C: 43-8 (1) In the case of a crime of the first degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between 10 years and 20 years;

(2) In the case of a crime of the second degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between five years and 10 years;

(3) In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years;

(4) In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months.

2C:43-3 Fines have been increased recently! 2C:43-3. Fines and Restitutions. A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed:

a. (1) $200,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the first degree;

(2) $150,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the second degree;

b. (1) $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree;

(2) $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree;

c. $1,000.00, when the conviction is of a disorderly persons offense;

d. $500.00, when the conviction is of a petty disorderly persons offense;

If facing any criminal charge, retain an experienced attorney immediately to determine you rights and obligations to the court. Current criminal charge researched by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. 732-572-0500




Receive free NJ Laws Email newsletter with current laws and cases


Telephone Consultation Program
New Article of the Week
Meet with an experienced Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office" consultation.
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal, drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. Our office helps people with traffic/ municipal court tickets including drivers charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal and Driving While Suspended.

Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutor's Association.

Criminal and Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have to pay fines in court or receive points on your drivers license. An accumulation of too many points, or certain moving violations may require you to pay expensive surcharges to the N.J. DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] or have your license suspended. Don't give up! The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal motor vehicle violations.

When your job or driver's license is in jeopardy or you are facing thousands of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insurance increases, you need excellent legal representation. The least expensive attorney is not always the answer. Schedule an appointment if you need experienced legal representation in a traffic/municipal court matter.

Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on traffic offenses we can be retained to represent people. Our website also provides details on jail terms for traffic violations and car insurance eligibility points. Car insurance companies increase rates or drop customers based on moving violations.

Contact the Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment.

The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential "in office" consultation.


Tracey Lewis
Assistant Editor

Middlesex County Bar Association 3rd Annual Awards Dinner

Middlesex County Bar Association 3rd Annual Awards Dinner
On March 19, 2008, the Middlesex County Bar Association will hold its third annual awards dinner at Sunny Palace Restaurant on Route 18 South in East Brunswick. Awards will be given to bar members in the following areas: Pro Bono; Non-Litigation; Civil Trial Practice; Criminal Trial Practice; and Municipal Court Practice.

The guest speaker will be Hon. Travis L. Francis, AJSC.
The MCBA will pay tribute to these bar members for their significant contributions to their respective practice areas.
The following awards will be given:

-Pro Bono Attorney-of-the Year Henry Gurshman
-Civil Trial Practitioner-of-the-Year John Gorman
-Criminal Trial Attorney-of-the-Year Jim Nolan & Nicole Albert
-Municipal Court Practitioner-of-the-Year Kenneth Vercammen
-Young Lawyer of the Year Kimberly Yonta Aronow
-Transactional Attorney of the Year Michael Schaff

The purpose of the Awards is to recognize attorneys practicing in Middlesex County and adjacent municipalities who devote a significant portion of their law practice to their respective practice areas and exhibit one or more of the following:

- Leadership in the potential candidate’s field of practice;
- Significant, tangible contributions to the Bar, such as participation in educational panels, Bar committees, etc, pertaining to non-litigation issues;
- Contributions to the community and/or charitable endeavors;
- A record promoting participation and involvement in the MCBA and collegiality within the Association; and
- A reputation for personal and professional integrity.

The evening will commence with a cocktail hour (cash bar) at 6:00 p.m. and dinner will be served at 7:00 p.m. The cost to attend is $35 for MCBA Young Lawyers, $40 for MCBA Members and $45 for all others, in advance.
For additional information, contact the Bar Office at (732) 828-3433, ext. 102.
More details at http://www.mcbalaw.com/cde.cfm?event=186648

Sunny Palace
1069 Route 18 South
East Brunswick, NJ 08816

Marijuana 2C:35-10

The Municipal Courts of New Jersey have jurisdiction to hear the following drug-related offenses:

NJSA 2C:5-10(a)(4), possession of 50g or less of marijuana or 5g or less of hashish;
NJSA 2C:35-10(b), using or being under the influence of CDS;
NJSA 2C:35-10(c), failure to deliver CDS to police;
NJSA 2C:36-2, possession of drug paraphernalia

Violation of these statutes constitute disorderly person offenses. If convicted, the court may impose a $500.00 Drug Enforcement Reduction penalty and a $50.00 lab fee for each CDS charge. The court has discretion to fine a defendant up to $1,000 and/or incarceration for up to six months. The $50.00 VCCB penalty also must be imposed.

Moreover, the court must suspend the defendant's driver's license for a time period between six months and two years. In addition, probation for up to two years, drug counseling, periodic urine testing, alcohol and/or psychiatric counseling and community service may be imposed.

If you elect to initially plead not guilty, your attorney will send a discovery letter/letter of representation to both the Municipal Prosecutor and the Municipal Court Clerk. If you have a drug problem, it is recommended that you attend a substance abuse treatment programs to seek help for any addiction. Proof of attendance of such a program is of benefit at sentencing or in obtaining an application for conditional discharge.

CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE

New Jersey State statute N.J.S.A. 2C: 36A-1 provides that a person not previously convicted of a drug offense and who has not previously been granted "supervisory treatment" under 24:21-27, 2C:43-12 or 2C: 36A-l may apply for a conditional discharge. The court upon notice to the prosecutor and subject to 2C: 36A-l(c) may on the motion of the defendant or the court, suspend further proceedings and place the defendant on supervisory treatment (i.e., probation, supervised or unsupervised attendance at Narcotics Anonymous, etc.).

Since the granting of a conditional discharge is optional to the court, you should be prepared to prove, through letters, documents, or even witnesses, that the defendant's continued presence in the community or in a civil treatment program, will not pose a danger to the community.

You should be prepared to convince the court that the terms and conditions of supervisory treatment will be adequate to protect the public and will benefit the defendant by serving to correct any dependence on or use of controlled substances. The defendant must be required to pay a $45.00 application fee, plus the mandatory $500.00 DEDR penalty, and $50.00 lab fee. The court further has the option to suspend a defendant's driver's license between six months and two years.

The conditional discharge period is also between six months and two years. If the defendant is convicted of a drug offense during the CD period or violates the conditions set by the court, the prosecution resumes. The defendant may even apply for a conditional discharge after he/she is found guilty, but before sentence is imposed. If the CD is granted at this point in the proceeding, the 6 to 24 month license suspension is mandatory.

SUPPRESSION MOTION

A timely Motion to Suppress Evidence must be made pursuant to Rule 3:5-7. The court rules have been amended to provide the Suppression Motion can be held directly in the Municipal Court. Your attorney can subpoena witnesses, sometimes even serving a subpoena duces tecum on the arresting officer to compel him to bring to court the object allegedly observed in plain view. Credibility will be tested when the object that was claimed to be in plain view inside a car is actually only one-half inch long. Cross-examination is very important.

PRE-TRIAL

The Municipal Court prosecutor is responsible for providing discovery. Rules 3:13-3, 7:4-2, State v Polasky, N.J. Super. 549 (Law Div. 1986); State v Tull, 234 N.J. Super. 486 (Law Div. 1989); State v Ford, 240 N.J. Super. 44 (App. Div. 1990). The State must prove the substance seized was a controlled dangerous substance (CDS).

To prove the substance is CDS, either the lab technician who examined the substance must be called testify, or the State will have to admit the lab certificate prepared pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-19. If the State intends to introduce the lab certificate at the trial, a notice of an intent to proffer that certificate and all reports relating to the analysis of the CDS shall be served on defense counsel at least 20 days before the proceeding begins. This includes an actual copy of the lab certificate.

Within 10 days of receipt, the Defense counsel must notify the Prosecutor in writing. This will not only alert the Prosecutor to the Defendant's objections concerning the admission of the lab certificate into evidence, but also set forth grounds for the objection, 2C:35-19c. Failure by defense counsel to timely object shall constitute a waiver of any objection to the certificate, thus, the certificate will be submitted into evidence.

THE TRIAL

The burden of primary possession/constructive possession remains on the State. Plea bargaining is not permitted in Municipal Court CDS cases (while it is available in such varied charges as murder, careless driving, or the burning of old tires). The State must prove knowledge or purpose on the part of the defendant.

Knowledge means that the defendant was aware of the existence of the object and was aware of its character. Purpose means it was defendant's conscious intention to obtain or possess the item while being aware of its character. Knowledge of the character of the substance may be inferred from the circumstances. 33 N.J. Practice Criminal Law & Procedure (Miller) Sec. 378 p. 563 (2nd Ed 1990).

If actual possession cannot be demonstrated, defendant's constructive possession may sometimes be shown by proof that the narcotics were subject to dominion and control. If two or more persons share actual or constructive possession, then their possession is joint. However, mere presence on premises where CDS is found is not sufficient, in itself, to justify an inference that a particular defendant was in sole or joint possession of the substance. State v McMenamin 133 N.J. Super. 521,S24 (App. Div. 1975).

In State v. Shipp, 216 N.J. Super. 662,666 (App. Div. 1987), it was held that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant, a passenger in the front seat, had constructive possession of CDS secretly contained in envelopes in a vinyl bag resting on the back seat next to another passenger in the car.

In addition to establishing if the item seized is a CDS through either a lab report or the State Police chemist, the State must establish the chain of custody. The prosecutor's witness will call witnesses to prove the location of the seized drugs from the moment of initial seizure to the time of the testing of the illegal drug.

If the state will be attempting to introduce a confession or other incriminating statements, defense counsel may request on evidence rule 8 hearing to determine if the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona 384 US. 436 (1966) have been violated. If the defendant elects to take the stand, defense counsel must be certain that he testifies with complete candor and does not try to embellish his protestations of innocence.

CONCLUSION

Drug related offenses carry substantial penalties which will effect a person for the rest of his life. The space limits of this article do not allow detailed explanation of the extensive caselaw on controlled dangerous substances. Do not permit drug use and you will not have to worry about the substantial penalties.



New Drug Possession Law:

2C:35-10 Possession, use or being under the influence, or failure to make lawful disposition

2C:35-10. Possession, Use or Being Under the Influence, or Failure to Make Lawful Disposition.

a. It is unlawful for any person, knowingly or purposely, to obtain, or to possess, actually or constructively, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog, unless the substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order form from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by P.L.1970, c.226 (C.24:21-1 et seq.). Any person who violates this section with respect to:

(1) A controlled dangerous substance, or its analog, classified in Schedule I, II, III or IV other than those specifically covered in this section, is guilty of a crime of the third degree except that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine of up to $35,000.00 may be imposed;

(2) Any controlled dangerous substance, or its analog, classified in Schedule V, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree except that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine of up to $15,000.00 may be imposed;

(3) Possession of more than 50 grams of marijuana, including any adulterants or dilutants, or more than five grams of hashish is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree, except that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine of up to $25,000.00 may be imposed; or

(4) Possession of 50 grams or less of marijuana, including any adulterants or dilutants, or five grams or less of hashish is a disorderly person.

Any person who commits any offense defined in this section while on any property used for school purposes which is owned by or leased to any elementary or secondary school or school board, or within 1,000 feet of any such school property or a school bus, or while on any school bus, and who is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment, shall, in addition to any other sentence which the court may impose, be required to perform not less than 100 hours of community service.

b. Any person who uses or who is under the influence of any controlled dangerous substance, or its analog, for a purpose other than the treatment of sickness or injury as lawfully prescribed or administered by a physician is a disorderly person.

In a prosecution under this subsection, it shall not be necessary for the State to prove that the accused did use or was under the influence of any specific drug, but it shall be sufficient for a conviction under this subsection for the State to prove that the accused did use or was under the influence of some controlled dangerous substance, counterfeit controlled dangerous substance, or controlled substance analog, by proving that the accused did manifest physical and physiological symptoms or reactions caused by the use of any controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog.

c. Any person who knowingly obtains or possesses a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog in violation of subsection a. of this section and who fails to voluntarily deliver the substance to the nearest law enforcement officer is guilty of a disorderly persons offense. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to preclude a prosecution or conviction for any other offense defined in this title or any other statute.

Amended 1988, c.44, s.5; 1997, c.181, s.6.

2C:35-10.2 Possession, etc. of gamma hydroxybutyrate; penalties 4. a. It is a crime of the third degree for any person, knowingly or purposely, to obtain, or to possess, gamma hydroxybutyrate unless the substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order form from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by P.L.1970, c.226 (C.24:21-1 et seq.).

b. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-3 or any other law, a fine of up to $100,000.00 may be imposed upon a person who violates this section.

L.1997,c. 194, s.4.

2C:35-10.3 Possession, etc. of flunitrazepam; penalties 6. a. It is a crime of the third degree for any person, knowingly or purposely, to obtain, or to possess, flunitrazepam, unless the substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order form from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by P.L.1970, c.226 (C.24:21-1 et seq.).

b. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-3 or any other law, a fine of up to $100,000.00 may be imposed upon a person who violates this section.

L.1997,c. 194, s.6.



Kenneth Vercammen's Law office represents individuals charged with criminal, drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. Our office helps people with traffic/ municipal court tickets including drivers charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal and Driving While Suspended.

Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutor's Association.

Criminal and Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have to pay fines in court or receive points on your drivers license. An accumulation of too many points, or certain moving violations may require you to pay expensive surcharges to the N.J. DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] or have your license suspended. Don't give up! The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal motor vehicle violations.

When your job or driver's license is in jeopardy or you are facing thousands of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insurance increases, you need excellent legal representation. The least expensive attorney is not always the answer. Schedule an appointment if you need experienced legal representation in a traffic/municipal court matter.

Our website www.njlaws.com provides information on traffic offenses we can be retained to represent people. Our website also provides details on jail terms for traffic violations and car insurance eligibility points. Car insurance companies increase rates or drop customers based on moving violations.

Contact the Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment

State of New Jersey in the Interest of D.Y.

02-04-08 A-0490-07T4

The prosecutor filed a complaint in the Family Part
charging a juvenile with aggravated assault that led to the
victim's death. More than 30 days later, after further
investigation indicated that the juvenile had far greater
responsibility for the death, the prosecutor dismissed the first
complaint and filed a second complaint charging murder. Within
30 days of the second filing, the prosecutor moved for waiver of
the murder complaint to the Law Division, where the juvenile
would be tried as an adult. We reversed the denial of the
prosecutor's motion, holding: (1) the motion was timely because
the 30 time limit of N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26(d) and Rule 5:22-2(a) did
not begin to run on the murder complaint until it was filed; (2)
the development of the additional incriminatory evidence after
the filing of the first complaint provided good cause for an
extension of the 30-day time limit even if that time began to
run from the filing of the first complaint.

State v. Quinn Marshall

01-29-08 A-3397-05T4

A judge issued a search warrant for an apartment in a
multiple unit structure but required that the police further
investigate which of two apartments was allegedly involved in
criminality; he did not require that the police return with this
additional, necessary information, but instead issued the
warrant on the condition that it not be executed until that
additional information was obtained. The court concluded that
this process violated the constitutional requirement that a
search warrant be issued by a "neutral and detached magistrate"
because the judge ceded his authority to the discretion of the
police.

The State also argued that the warrant was sufficient
insofar as it had authorized the police to search whichever
apartment was "controlled" or "possessed" by a particular
person. The court held that this loose description did not
conform to the constitutional requirement that the place to be
searched be "particularly describe[d]" in the warrant.

State v. Morgan C. Scott

01-28-08* A-5813-03T4

The primary issue in this case was whether defendant
actually or constructively possessed cocaine that was found in
the vehicle in which he was a passenger. With one judge
dissenting, we affirmed the trial court's decision to deny
defendant's motion for acquittal and his motion for a new trial.
But we remanded for a determination regarding the voluntariness
of statements attributed to defendant and for resentencing.
[*Approved for Publication date]

State v. Ernest J. Read, III

01-24-08 A-1751-03T4

In determining whether to waive a charge of a Chart 1
offense against a juvenile over the age of sixteen, the Family
Part is not required to consider the juvenile's alleged
psychological impairments. N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26, which authorizes
the Family Part to waive jurisdiction to adult court based on
judicial fact-finding by a preponderance of the evidence, does
not violate a juvenile-defendant's jury trial rights under the
principles set forth in Apprendi and Blakely.

State v. B.M.

01-11-08 A-4075-06T5

We hold that a defendant's decision to introduce certain
evidence may trigger the right of the State to rebut any unfair
implication of that evidence. In this matter where sexual abuse
is alleged by a ten-year-old child, we affirm the trial court's
exercise of discretion to permit the defendant to elicit on
cross-examination that the child had also alleged separate
incidents of sexual abuse by three other persons. We remand,
however, for further consideration, in light of the doctrine of
"opening the door," as to whether the State may introduce
evidence of juvenile delinquency adjudications pursuant to
guilty pleas by the other three alleged abusers.

State v. Thomas Conroy, Jr.

01-09-08 A-2384-06T5

The question presented is whether a defendant, who has had
three prior convictions for DWI, is entitled to the benefit of
the ten-year step-down provision of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) on a
fourth conviction, where the first conviction was entered by way
of an uncounseled plea. We answer the question in the
affirmative, determining that when defendant appeared before the
Law Division he stood as a third offender, not a fourth
offender, for the limited purpose of the trial court imposing a
jail sentence under the enhanced sentencing provision of the DWI
statute.

State v. David L. Wilder

1-31-08 (A-87-06)

Based on the State’s evidence and giving the State the benefit
of all favorable inferences, a jury reasonably could have
convicted defendant of serious-bodily-injury murder; thus, the
trial court did not err by sending the murder charge to the
jury. The Court rejects continued use of the Christener rule;
overcharging errors must be reviewed under the “unjust result”
standard established in Rule 2:10-2.

State v. William J. Allegro

1-29-08 (A-119-06)

Allegro’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims arising from
defense counsel’s failure to investigate potential witnesses and
to call those witnesses do not satisfy the two-pronged
Strickland/Fritz standard. His claims in respect of counsel’s
ineffectiveness in the plea discussions and negotiations
requires a remand for development of a more comprehensive record
and the PCR court’s conclusions based on that record.

State v. George Jenewicz

1-28-08 (A-78-06)

The cumulative impact of the trial court’s preclusion of
testimony from two defense witnesses and the prosecution’s
improper cross-examination of the defense expert and
disparagement of the defense expert during summation prejudiced
the fairness of defendant’s trial and cast doubt on the
propriety of the jury’s verdict, warranting a new trial.

State v. Manuel B. Ortiz

1-17-08 (A-109-06)

Krol periodic review hearings must be held for those defendants
acquitted by reason of insanity who are committed under N.J.S.A.
2C:4-8(b)(3) as well as for those who are released subject to
supervision or conditions pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:4-8(b)(2), but
not for those who are released without supervision or conditions
as provided in N.J.S.A. 2C:4-8(b)(1).

State v. Frederick T. Hamilton

1-16-08 (A-57-06)

The trial court erred in concluding that it had no ability to
ameliorate the undue prejudice to defendant through sanitization
of his earlier conviction. This Court’s prior holding that
sanitization is mandatory in situations in which a prior
conviction is the same or similar to the present charge did not
foreclose from trial courts the discretion to consider
sanitization in other circumstances that pose a risk of undue
prejudice to a defendant.

State v. Morgan Scott

1-10-08 (A-115-06)

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially
for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division’s majority
opinion.