State v. Richard Clarke (A-11-09) State v. William T. Dolan (A-12-09)7-21-10
An informal hearing is sufficient for the Drug Court to give full and fair consideration to a defendant’s application for admission into the Drug Court program. However, because it is not clear whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard for admission under the “second track” of the requirements, each case is remanded for further proceedings.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
State v. Eugene Basil (A-34-09)
State v. Eugene Basil (A-34-09) 7-20-10
The on-scene identification by a citizen informant and
corroborative discovery of the weapon gave officers
probable cause to arrest defendant and, therefore,
defendant’s volunteered statement to police should not
have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful
arrest. In addition, the members of the Court being
equally divided, the judgment of the Appellate
Division is affirmed, holding that the non-appearing
witness’s testimonial hearsay statement was
inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation
Clause. The admission of the statement had the clear
capacity to cause an unjust result and was not
harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt
The on-scene identification by a citizen informant and
corroborative discovery of the weapon gave officers
probable cause to arrest defendant and, therefore,
defendant’s volunteered statement to police should not
have been suppressed as the product of an unlawful
arrest. In addition, the members of the Court being
equally divided, the judgment of the Appellate
Division is affirmed, holding that the non-appearing
witness’s testimonial hearsay statement was
inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation
Clause. The admission of the statement had the clear
capacity to cause an unjust result and was not
harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt
State v. Alice O’Donnell (A-54-09)
State v. Alice O’Donnell (A-54-09) 7-20-10
The judgment of the Appellate Division, which upheld
the trial court’s denial of defendant Alice
O’Donnell’s motion to suppress evidence, is affirmed
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge
Skillman’s opinion.
The judgment of the Appellate Division, which upheld
the trial court’s denial of defendant Alice
O’Donnell’s motion to suppress evidence, is affirmed
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge
Skillman’s opinion.
State v. Alice O’Donnell (A-54-09)
State v. Alice O’Donnell (A-54-09) 7-20-10
The judgment of the Appellate Division, which upheld
the trial court’s denial of defendant Alice
O’Donnell’s motion to suppress evidence, is affirmed
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge
Skillman’s opinion.
The judgment of the Appellate Division, which upheld
the trial court’s denial of defendant Alice
O’Donnell’s motion to suppress evidence, is affirmed
substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge
Skillman’s opinion.
State v. German Marquez (A-35-09)
State v. German Marquez (A-35-09)
7-12-10 S
In this case involving a conviction for refusing to
submit to a chemical breath test, the Court holds that
New Jersey’s implied consent law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2,
and refusal law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, require proof
that an officer requested the motorist to submit to a
chemical breath test and informed the person of the
consequences of refusing to do so. The statement used
to explain to motorists the consequences of refusal
must be given in a language the person speaks or
understands. Because defendant German Marquez was State v. German Marquez (A-35-09)
In this case involving a conviction for refusing to
submit to a chemical breath test, the Court holds that
New Jersey’s implied consent law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2,
and refusal law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, require proof
that an officer requested the motorist to submit to a
chemical breath test and informed the person of the
consequences of refusing to do so. The statement used
to explain to motorists the consequences of refusal
must be given in a language the person speaks or
understands. Because defendant German Marquez was
advised of these consequences in English, and there is
no dispute that he did not understand English, his refusal conviction is reversed.
7-12-10 S
In this case involving a conviction for refusing to
submit to a chemical breath test, the Court holds that
New Jersey’s implied consent law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2,
and refusal law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, require proof
that an officer requested the motorist to submit to a
chemical breath test and informed the person of the
consequences of refusing to do so. The statement used
to explain to motorists the consequences of refusal
must be given in a language the person speaks or
understands. Because defendant German Marquez was State v. German Marquez (A-35-09)
In this case involving a conviction for refusing to
submit to a chemical breath test, the Court holds that
New Jersey’s implied consent law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2,
and refusal law, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.4a, require proof
that an officer requested the motorist to submit to a
chemical breath test and informed the person of the
consequences of refusing to do so. The statement used
to explain to motorists the consequences of refusal
must be given in a language the person speaks or
understands. Because defendant German Marquez was
advised of these consequences in English, and there is
no dispute that he did not understand English, his refusal conviction is reversed.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. TAMESHA CAMPBELL A-1866-09T4
07-09-10 STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. TAMESHA CAMPBELL A-1866-09T4
We reverse an interlocutory order denying a motion for a
jury trial after a mistrial holding that the declaration of
mistrial nullified defendant's prior waiver of her Sixth
Amendment right to trial by jury.
We reverse an interlocutory order denying a motion for a
jury trial after a mistrial holding that the declaration of
mistrial nullified defendant's prior waiver of her Sixth
Amendment right to trial by jury.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
STATE VS. ENDER F. POMPA (A-0139-08T4 )
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ENDER F. POMPA A-0139-08T4 7-2-10
Following his conviction of various drug offenses,
defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress in
excess of thirty pounds of marijuana seized by police without a
warrant from a closet in the sleeper cabin of defendant's
tractor trailer. The court held that the closely regulated
business exception permitted a warrantless administrative
inspection of certain areas of the tractor trailer, but
concluded that the search turned unlawful when it progressed
into unregulated areas without the exigent circumstances
required by State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 28 (2009).
Following his conviction of various drug offenses,
defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress in
excess of thirty pounds of marijuana seized by police without a
warrant from a closet in the sleeper cabin of defendant's
tractor trailer. The court held that the closely regulated
business exception permitted a warrantless administrative
inspection of certain areas of the tractor trailer, but
concluded that the search turned unlawful when it progressed
into unregulated areas without the exigent circumstances
required by State v. Pena-Flores, 198 N.J. 6, 28 (2009).
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Kenneth Vercammen Law Office 25th Anniversary Party Friday, July 30, 2010
Kenneth Vercammen Law Office
25th Anniversary Party
Friday, July 30, 2010
"Celebrating 25 years of providing excellent service to clients and the community"
1985-2010
Happy Hour, Open House, Client & Community Appreciation Social. Open to the public 4-7 PM
Food, Refreshments, T- shirts and special gifts
The Law office is located at 2053 Woodbridge Avenue, Edison, NJ 08817 near the Nixon Post Office, approximately 1/2 mile from Route 1/ Wick Plaza, and 1 mile from Middlesex County College. There is 50 parking spaces nearby on Russell Ave. and Lillian St. around the corner from Kim’s Kafe, on Woodbridge Ave. near the Green Derby Tavern, and across the street on School House Lane.
Visit our website at www.njlaws.com for Directions and other details or call and we will fax directions or email at KenV@njlaws.com
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. at (732) 572-0500(Law office)
Fax form to 732-572-0030 or email
kenvnjlaws@verizon.net
-Yes, We will be attending the party
Name: _____________________________
email: _____________________________
http://www.kennethvercammen.com/25th.party.html
25th Anniversary Party
Friday, July 30, 2010
"Celebrating 25 years of providing excellent service to clients and the community"
1985-2010
Happy Hour, Open House, Client & Community Appreciation Social. Open to the public 4-7 PM
Food, Refreshments, T- shirts and special gifts
The Law office is located at 2053 Woodbridge Avenue, Edison, NJ 08817 near the Nixon Post Office, approximately 1/2 mile from Route 1/ Wick Plaza, and 1 mile from Middlesex County College. There is 50 parking spaces nearby on Russell Ave. and Lillian St. around the corner from Kim’s Kafe, on Woodbridge Ave. near the Green Derby Tavern, and across the street on School House Lane.
Visit our website at www.njlaws.com for Directions and other details or call and we will fax directions or email at KenV@njlaws.com
Kenneth Vercammen, Esq. at (732) 572-0500(Law office)
Fax form to 732-572-0030 or email
kenvnjlaws@verizon.net
-Yes, We will be attending the party
Name: _____________________________
email: _____________________________
http://www.kennethvercammen.com/25th.party.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)