Petition for Certification Tag

Supreme Court of New Jersey Grants Certification in Two Cases

By Andrew Gimigliano on 11/15/2017
Posted In Petition for Certification, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certification in two matters this week.

In the Matter of William R. Hendrickson, Jr. – What is the appropriate standard of appellate review of a final agency decision when the initial decision of the administrative law judge is “deemed adopted” as the final agency decision pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c) when the agency lacked a quorum to act?

Joshua Haines v. Jacob W. Taft; Tuwona Little v. Jayne Nishimura – Does N.J.S.A. 39:6A-12 preclude a plaintiff from recovering medical expenses above those collectible or paid under an insured’s PIP provision in a standard automobile insurance policy, including medical expenses exceeding any elected PIP option allowed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.3(d)?

Supreme Court Grants Petition for Certification in a Photo Array Case

By Andrew Gimigliano on 10/20/2017
Posted In Out-of-Court Identification, Petition for Certification, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today decided to review an unpublished opinion of the Appellate Division: State v. Anthony, decided April 5, 2017. The Court Clerk’s office frames the issue on review: “Is defendant entitled to a new trial based on the police officer’s failure to record verbatim the comments of the witness while identifying defendant from a photographic array?”

After conviction at trial on a number of charges, the most serious being second-degree conspiracy to commit armed robbery, the defendant filed an appeal challenging the out-of-court identification process (which was introduced at trial without objection). According to the Appellate Division opinion, the defendant argued that the victim’s out-of-court identification was inadmissible because the police failed to “immediately record” the victim’s own words related to his statement of confidence when he identified the defendant’s photograph. The defendant also argued that the trial court failed to give the proper instruction on how the jury should consider the failure to record the victim’s actual words.

The panel sided with the State, concluding that the out-of-court identification process was appropriate and in accordance with the law and that the trial court gave a thorough and correct identification charge. The Supreme Court will now weigh in, adding to its witness identification jurisprudence (e.g., State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011); State v. Delgado, 188 N.J. 48 (2006)).