Waiver of Juveniles to Adult Court is Now Subject to Higher Level of Scrutiny in NJ

Prosecutors showing probable cause that a juvenile committed certain enumerated violent and drug related offenses may waive juvenile offenders over 16 from the jurisdiction of the family court to adult criminal court. Previously the standard of review was "patent and gross abuse of discretion" when the prosecutor's decision to waive the juvenile into adult criminal court was challenged. On September 12, 2012, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided, in State in the Interest of V.A., changed the standard of review to the much lower standard of "abuse of discretion." The justices opinion indicated the lower standard was preferable due to the substantially enhanced punishment faced by juveniles tried in adult criminal court. In this case, the juveniles were charged with conduct amounting to first-degree robbery, second-degree aggravated assault and conspiracy. The justices, in consideration of the serious penalties for the offenses, offered guidelines governing the waiver of juveniles into adult criminal court including the nature of the offense, the need for deterrence, the possible sentence the juvenile will receive at trial and the juvenile's prior record. Juvenile matters are extremely sensitive in nature as they may result in a criminal record which destroys the hope of certain educational and employment opportunities for the remainder of the juvenile's life. If your son or daughter is facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on juvenile criminal matters including municipal court matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

NJ Forfeiture Requires Proof Defendant Used the Property in Furtherance of a Crime

In State v. $569,950 in US Currency, a confidential informant alleged defendant was involved in a drug transaction from which defendant received substantial funds and that defendant was in danger of being robbed of his funds. The New Jersey State Police used the information obtained from the caller as probable cause to search defendant's hotel room. The police seized the cash and defendant's tractor trailer which was parked outside. The evidence located by the police in the illegal search was suppressed by the Judge as a result of a suppression hearing and all the police were left with to prove their case was the fact that defendant was in possession of a large sum of cash. Defendant explained the manner in which he obtained large amounts of cash through his trucking business, why he did not have prior tax returns or other information and that he had the cash on hand as a result of his intent to purchase a trucking operation in NJ. The court ruled that, in light of the explanation for the cash, the State failed to meet its burden of proof and dismissed the complaint against defendant. If you are charged with robbery, burglary, theft, attempt or other criminal charges it is imperative that you discuss your matter with an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately to insure your rights are protected. For more information about robbery, burglary, theft , shoplifting, attempt or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Conviction For Armed Robbery While Unarmed in NJ?

This case begins like a good joke: An unarmed man walks into a bank and hands the teller a note saying "I've got a bomb- hand over the money." Only in this case the bank was real, the man was real, the teller was real and the penalties are real. The only thing that was not real was the bomb but the man was convicted of first-degree armed robbery by simulation and was sentenced to 14 years. The New Jersey Appellate Division was more forgiving and reversed the conviction as it seemed unreasonable to them, given the circumstances, that the teller could believe the man had a bomb. Their reasoning is that a conviction would require conduct or something indicating the weapon alleged was present. The prosecutor's office argued that bombs are sophisticated these days and have been hidden in shoes and undergarments to be later identified on airplanes and that, failure to see a large ticking device no longer means a bomb is not present. This very well may become an issue ripe for change in the future If you are a defendant in an armed robbery case, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on robbery, armed robbery, burglary, theft, shoplifting or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.

Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty in NJ

Often those facing criminal charges find themselves facing substantial prosecutorial prejudice, especially if they have faced prior charges. Even those who have been acquitted of prior charges or who have had prior charges dismissed by the prosecution face such prejudice. Prosecutors rely heavily on the representations of police officers and work under the assumption that the facts presented by those officers are truthful. Prosecutors are involved in long-term investigations and oversee task forces in which police officers operate in the field to obtain information for prosecutors to use to obtain convictions against criminal offenders. In such cases, the prosecutor is intimately involved in the development of the evidence he or she will later present to a judge in order to obtain a conviction. The prosecutor is not simply putting on the State's case but is, in essence, putting on his or her own personal case against the defendant. As a result of their personal involvement and reliance on officers, prosecutors are rather zealous at times, sometimes overly so. Prosecutors must act within the bounds of the law. One way prosecutors overstep the rules is to attempt to shift the burden of proof to the accused in the minds of the jury. They will try to infer to the jury that if the defendant chooses to exercise his right not to testify against himself or herself then the jury may infer guilt. In a recent case, State v. Urgent, the defendant was convicted of robbery and unlawful possession of a weapon (a knife). The prosecutor attempted to influence the jury to believe the defendant's failure to produce certain witnesses permitted the jury to infer the defendant's guilt. The New Jersey Appellate Court's holding in State v. Urgent reinforced the notion that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the burden of proof remains on the prosecutor by reversing the guilty finding and remanding the case to Superior Court for a new trial. This means the prosecutor must prove the accused is guilty and, although the accused should present any available evidence in his or her favor, the accused is never required to prove innocence. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are facing criminal charges, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.

Increased Penalties For Burglary Are Pending in NJ

Pending legislation upgrades second degree burglary of a residence to first degree if the actor is armed. Due to the danger to human life which is always present during a home invasion, the NJ Assembly passed A-1035 on March 15, 2012. This bill is now on the desk of Governor Christie. The bill is sponsored by Assemblymen Anthony Bucco of Morris and Somerset, Ralph Caputo of Essex, Michael Patrick Carroll of Morris and Somerset and Jon Bramnick of Morris, Somerset and Union. Burglary is defined in the bill as entering or surreptitiously remaining in a dwelling or structure adapted for overnight accommodation of persons. The text of the bill includes that no one need be present when the burglary occurs. To be considered armed under the bill, the actor may display "what appears to be" explosives or a "deadly weapon." In the situation of a burglary, the actor and the victims are often surprised to encounter each other within the residence. The results are frequently deadly and the actions the parties may be confusing to each other. An actor encountered by a homeowner may be perceived as armed by virtue of an object the actor is holding with no intent to use the object as a weapon. The terms of this statute will greatly increase the penalties for such an actor to up to 10-20 years in prison and $200,000 in fines. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter. If you are a defendant in a burglary matter, you should consult an experienced criminal law attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on burglary, robbery, theft, shoplifting or other criminal law matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com.