2C:39-5 Unlawful possession of weapons. a. Machine guns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession a machine gun or any instrument or device adaptable for use as a machine gun, without being licensed to do so as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-5, is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
2C:39-5 Unlawful possession of weapons.
2C:39-5 Unlawful possession of weapons. a. Machine guns. Any person who knowingly has in his possession a machine gun or any instrument or device adaptable for use as a machine gun, without being licensed to do so as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-5, is guilty of a crime of the second degree.
2C:33-15 Possession, consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under legal age; penalty.
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.
2C:33-2. Disorderly conduct
a. Improper behavior. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense, if with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof he
(1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or
(2) Creates a hazardous or physically dangerous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
b. Offensive language. A person is guilty of a petty disorderly persons offense if, in a public place, and with purpose to offend the sensibilities of a hearer or in reckless disregard of the probability of so doing, he addresses unreasonably loud and offensively coarse or abusive language, given the circumstances of the person present and the setting of the utterance, to any person present.
"Public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, or any neighborhood.
L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:33-2, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN J. LAWLESS, JR. A-2064-10T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN J. LAWLESS, JR.
A-2064-10T3
Defendant pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter and
driving while intoxicated. After consuming a large amount of
beer, defendant fell asleep at the wheel of his car, crossed the
center line of the road and collided with an on-coming car,
killing the driver and causing serious injuries to the
passengers. Citing aggravating factors two (the gravity and
seriousness of the harm inflicted), three (the risk that
defendant will commit another offense), six (the extent of
defendant's prior criminal record), and nine (the need for
specific and general deterrence), the judge imposed a thirtyyear
term of imprisonment for the aggravated manslaughter
charge.
We held that the record did not support reliance on
aggravating factor two because defendant pled guilty to only one
charge involving one victim; therefore, the judge could not rely
on the injuries suffered by other victims of the collision. We
also held that the judge could not rely on multiple prior
driving while intoxicated convictions because these charges are
not considered crimes. We remanded for reconsideration of the
sentence in accordance with the aggravating factors supported by
the record. 12-07-11
John Rogers v. Cape May County Office of the Public Defender (A-63-10; 067048)
John Rogers v. Cape May County Office of the Public
Defender (A-63-10; 067048)
Defendant was not “exonerated” until the indictment
was dismissed with prejudice on July 25, 2008, and his
claim was thus not barred by the one-year filing
limitation in N.J.S.A. 59:8-9. Nevertheless, because
the claim was filed ten days beyond the ninety-day
limit set forth in N.J.S.A. 59:8-8, further
proceedings are required to determine whether the
“extraordinary circumstances” standard in N.J.S.A.
59:8-9 was satisfied. 12-5-11
State v. Stanford Yough (A-67-10; 066950)
State v. Stanford Yough (A-67-10; 066950)
The trial court did not err in denying defendant
Stanford Yough’s motion for a mistrial after the
victim testified on direct and cross-examination that
he observed defendant more times than he had indicated
in his statement to the police. No errors occurred
during those exchanges that were clearly capable of
producing an unjust result. 11-30-11
Saturday, November 19, 2011
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEFFREY S. ZEIKEL A-1495-10T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEFFREY S. ZEIKEL
A-1495-10T4 11-09-11
Defendant was correctly sentenced as a third-time DWI
offender based on a prior conviction in New Jersey for DWI and
two prior convictions in New York State for driving while
ability impaired. The New York convictions were "of a
substantially similar nature" as a DWI violation in New Jersey.
See N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3). Defendant's constitutional,
statutory, and factual challenges to the consideration of his
1980s New York convictions are rejected.