E516 1. Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar Sponsored by M.A.S.H. Mutual Aid Self Help for single adults. May 8 at 7:30pm 2. Recent cases: Municipal Court can stay DL Suspension after DWI if Appeal. 3. DNA on Towel Not Admissible without Proper Foundation and Chain of Custody. 4. Next Community & Charity Events
NJ LAWS EMAIL NEWSLETTER E516
Kenneth Vercammen, Attorney at Law
April 26, 2017
In this issue:
1. Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar Sponsored by M.A.S.H. Mutual Aid Self Help for single adults. May 8 at 7:30pm
2. Recent cases: Municipal Court can stay DL Suspension after DWI if Appeal.
3. DNA on Towel Not Admissible without Proper Foundation and Chain of Custody.
1. Wills, Estate Planning & Probate SeminarSponsored by M.A.S.H Mutual Aid Self Help for single adults. May 8 at 7:30pm
Free community program
JFK Conference Center Social Hall
70 James Street
Edison, New Jersey 08820
WILLS & ESTATE ADMINISTRATION-
PROTECT YOUR FAMILY AND MAKE PLANNING EASY
1. Municipal Court can stay DL Suspension after DWI if Appeal. State v. Robertson __ NJ __ (2017)
The Crowe factors are not a good fit to assess license suspensions in driving while intoxicated (DWI) cases. Defendants who seek a new trial before the Law Division should be presumptively eligible for a stay of a driver's license suspension. The State can overcome that presumption by showing that a stay would present a serious threat to the safety of any person or the community. If no conditions would mitigate that risk, the court should not stay the sentence. If a defendant is convicted of DWI by the Law Division, the defendant has the burden to justify a stay of a driver's license pending appeal to the Appellate Division by demonstrating the three elements set forth in Rule 2:9-4. If a stay is granted, the court may impose appropriate conditions similar to those available after a defendant's conviction in municipal court. Municipal court and trial judges should set forth reasons on the record when they rule on a stay motion. (A-58-14)
3. DNA on Towel Not Admissible without Proper Foundation and Chain of Custody. State v Mauti 208 NJ 519 (2017)
A jury found defendant guilty of third degree aggravated criminal sexual contact and fourth degree criminal sexual contact and not guilty of first degree aggravated sexual assault and second degree sexual assault. Defendant is a physician. The complaining witness is his sister-in-law. The court reverse and remand for a new trial.
The court hold the trial judge should have excluded a towel containing defendant's semen based on the absence of competent evidence linking it to the alleged sexual assault. The towel also constituted inadmissible hearsay by conduct under N.J.R.E. 801(a)(2).
The judge also abused his discretion by permitting the State to call five fresh-complaint witnesses and thereafter deciding not to instruct the jury on fresh-complaint testimony. Defense counsel's acquiescence to the trial judge's decision not to charge the jury on fresh-complaint did not constitute invited error.
Finally, The court conclude that the trial court properly admitted a redacted version of a letter sent by defense counsel to the prosecutor as an adopted admission under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(3). Under these circumstances, The court reject defendant's argument that defense counsel's letter falls within the ambit of "plea negotiations," as that term is used in N.J.R.E. 410. Our analysis is guided by the federal courts' review of Fed. R. Evid. 410, the source rule of N.J.R.E. 410.
As a matter of first impression in this State, The court adopt the analytical approach used by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356, 1366 (5th Cir. 1978) to determine when interactions between the State's representative and defense counsel constitute protected "plea negotiations" under N.J.R.E. 410. This approach requires a trial judge to determine: (1) whether the accused exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a plea at the time of the discussion; and (2) whether the accused's expectation was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances. The State bears the burden of proof. Because this two-tiered approach requires a fact-sensitive analysis, the trial judge should conduct an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing to resolve any disputed facts. A-3551-12T3
4. Next Community & Charity Events
April 29 JSRC Lake Como 5k Romp 10am
Benefit BPOE Elks Camp Moore for Children with Special Needs & Lake Como Giving Tree
May 6, 2017 Farmlands 62-mile bike- Central Jersey Bike Club Middletown
May 7, 2017 Highland Park 5k Run in the Park 9am
May 14, 2017 Run the Hook 10am
5K/10K RACE TO KEEP OUR OCEANS WILD & POLLUTION FREE
Run The Hook is back at one of the Jersey Shore's most historic locations. With breathtaking views of both Atlantic Highlands and New York City, Run The Hook aims to offer athletes a unique environment to run (or walk) in and support of local charity, Clean Ocean Action. The 2nd annual event will once again feature 5K and 10K races for athletes of all abilities. The race provides the perfect opportunity for runners to kick off the summer at the beach while running through the natural beauty of one of American's finest National Parks. Last year's inaugural event sold out in advance. Sign up today!