Newsletter NJ Laws by Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.: E697 VercammenLaw News

E697 VercammenLaw News

1. Recent cases Criminal charges out of state must be set forth on Expungement petition

2 Playing Recording of standard DWI statement in court permitted here

3 Stop of robbery suspect based on surveillance permitted here

4. How to Select the Right Estate Planning Attorney

1 Recent cases Criminal charges out of state must be set forth on Expungement petition

In the Matter of Expungement Application of K.M.G

In this appeal of first impression, the court must determine whether the "clean slate" statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:52-5.3, which permits an expungement of a New Jersey criminal record if ten years have passed "from the date of the person's most recent conviction," applies to a conviction from another state. (Emphasis added). The trial court entered an order expunging petitioner's New Jersey criminal record after determining her 2017 Virginia misdemeanor conviction did not preclude eligibility for expungement under the "clean slate" statute because an out-of-state conviction does not constitute a "most recent conviction." The State contends the trial court erred in its interpretation of the "clean slate" statute, arguing petitioner's Virginia conviction must be considered, and because it was entered within ten years of her petition for expungement, her petition should have been denied.

The court reverses because the text of the "clean slate" statute and related expungement statutes do not support the trial court's interpretation to preclude consideration of an out-of-state conviction from the phrase "most recent conviction." Moreover, such interpretation defies common sense given the "clean slate" statute's purpose to expunge a criminal record of an applicant who has not violated the law within ten years of their last New Jersey conviction. Consequently, petitioner's Virginia offense presently disqualifies her from expungement of her New Jersey criminal record under the "clean slate" statute. A-0363-22

2 Playing Recording of standard DWI statement in court permitted here

State v. Lora

Defendant appealed his convictions for DWI and refusal to submit to a breath test. Officers stopped a vehicle driving with no headlights in the middle of the night. Officer observed defendant had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes and an odor of alcohol on his breath. Defendant stated he had drunk a few light beers. Defendant failed three field sobriety tests and was arrested. A recorded Standard Statement was played for defendant several times and he stated he wanted his lawyer before he provided a breath sample. Defendant ultimately refused to provide a breath sample, was read his Miranda rights and invoked his right to remain silent. Municipal judge denied defendant's motion to suppress the stop, found officer was credible, denied defendant's attempt to introduce a video showing how the vehicle's lights never went off that had not been provided in discovery and convicted defendant. Law Division was unpersuaded by defendant's arguments, found the evidence as to the headlights was not relevant and found defendant guilty. Court affirmed finding there was probable cause for the traffic stop, officer was credible and had probable cause to arrest defendant, and there was credible evidence to support the DWI conviction. Additionally, defendant's statements demonstrated he understood the Standard Statement and trial court properly found video was not relevant. Unreported source NJLJ 6/19/23

3 Stop of robbery suspect based on surveillance permitted here

State v. Murphy

Defendant appealed trial court's order denying his motion to suppress evidence seized following his arrest. A Port Authority Police Department detective interviewed a victim who had been robbed at a train station. The victim described the robber with details as to his height, race, physique, and clothing. The detective used surveillance footage to trace the suspect's movements back to a different train station, noting the suspect's height and weight and distinctive aspects of his pants. Surveillance footage from the other train station allowed the detective to determine what train car the suspect had ridden in. Some three and a-half hours after the robbery, the detective met the train car to obtain its surveillance video when he saw defendant, who matched the description of the suspect. Defendant was informed he matched the description of a robbery suspect and was taken to an interview room. Defendant was handcuffed at the time, but officers temporarily removed the handcuffs to allow him to empty his pockets to ensure officer safety. The contents of defendant's pockets included a benefit card bearing the robbery victim's name. Defendant subsequently gave a statement. Defendant moved to suppress that evidence, arguing police lacked probable cause to arrest him, and his statement and the search incident to arrest were unlawful. Trial court denied the motion, concluding the totality of the circumstances established probable cause for the arrest. Defendant appealed. Court affirmed. Court cited the reasons set out in trial court's thorough and well-written opinion, observing that the victim's suspect description was not vague, and that the subsequent details gathered by the detective, including the suspect's movements and clothing, demonstrated trial court's probable cause finding was not erroneous. Unreported Source Daily Briefing - 08-23-23

4. How to Select the Right Estate Planning Attorney

You need to make sure all the pieces of your puzzle fit together, like beneficiary designation, consistency, awareness of the law, and understanding what type of plan is appropriate for you. This is where working with a professional is essential. If the goal is to make things as easy as possible for your loved ones when you’re gone or during your incapacity, choosing the right attorney becomes essential.

Estate planning is complicated. If you want to make sure that you’ve covered all your bases, you have to find an attorney who is focused on estate planning. We keep up-to-date on changing laws. We have many tools at our disposal because we’ve been working in this are for 35 years. We have solutions for whatever the situation might be. Often, we have clients who are embarrassed to tell us about, for example, a child who has a heroin addiction. It’s hard to talk about those things but we’ve handled all of those situations before. In fact, we can virtually guarantee you we’ve handled it before and we have a great solution for you.

It’s very important that you’re comfortable with your estate planning attorney. This is a long-term relationship and you want to be comfortable calling with questions. You don’t want to feel judged and you want to be happy going every two to three years and having that review, without it being an excruciating process.

Reputation is important. You can’t always depend entirely on the simplicity of rating systems, particularly since legal services also aren’t like sitting down at a restaurant and eating a meal. It’s a little more complicated than that, but their rating and reputation is still a good indicator of where they fit in the scheme of things. The ancient Romans are quoted as saying “knowledge is power.” But, a closer translation is “know-how is power.” You need to find an attorney with know-ho of the law as it actually plays out. That’s the planning we do for people. It’s not something you can regurgitate from a book or cut-and-paste from a template. It is something that we really understand and know It’s how we can better assist and protect your family.

5 Woodbridge Library

Wills, Estate Planning & Probate Seminar