State v. Jane H. Chun, et al., 3/17/08 (NJ SC)
The NJ Supreme Court adopted, as modified, the Special Master’s reports and recommendations. Subject to certain conditions, the Court held that the Alcotest is scientifically reliable and that its results are admissible in drunk driving prosecutions. The Court contemporaneously issued 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. Douglas Noble, 3/13/08 (AD)
The Appellate Division held that 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. The Court concluded that 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.

State of New Jersey v. Hipolito Ruiz, 3/12/08 (AD)
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 of New Jersey v. Cadree B. Matthews, 3/10/08 (AD)
An anonymous caller stated that a person in a burgundy Durango with temrary 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.

The Appellate Division 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. Andre Johnson, 2/26/08 (NJ SC)
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 of New Jersey v. Terrence Echols, 2/26/08 (AD)
In this appeal, the Appellate Division 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 v. Charles A. Watkins, III. 2/21/08
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 (NJ SC)
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 of New Jersey in the Interest of D.Y., 2/4/08 (AD)
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.

The Appellate Division 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. David L. Wilder, 1/31/08 (NJ SC)
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 NJ Supreme Court rejected continued use of the Christener rule; overcharging errors must be reviewed under the “unjust result” standard established in Rule 2:10-2.