State v Jang 478 N.J. Super. 252 (Law Div. 2024) In these cases that were consolidated for the purpose of issuing a single opinion, defendants appeal from their convictions following municipal court appeals because the Law Division decided their appeals without conducting hearings or permitting briefing. In both cases, the Law Division determined briefing was not required and, because defendants did not request argument, decided the appeals based solely on its review of the municipal court transcripts and the police body camera video introduced as evidence in the municipal court trials. The court found it "is incumbent on counsel to . . . tell the court why briefing is necessary and to request argument if they want it." On appeal, defendants argued the court deprived them of their rights to due process and counsel. The court reversed, concluding Rules 3:23-4 and -8 require that the Law Division schedule and conduct a hearing on a municipal appeal. There is no requirement that a defendant request a hearing. The court also noted, although the proceeding is technically designated an appeal, the Law Division must conduct a trial de novo on a municipal appeal. At the trial de novo, the Law Division must make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and, if the court finds the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, sentence the defendant anew. The court also concluded, based on the arguments raised by defendants, it would be appropriate to permit, if not require, the parties to file briefs in these cases. Finally, to avoid any appearance of bias or prejudice, the court required the appeals be assigned to a different judge on remand. Published A-2054-22 | 
