X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
VOL. 2, NO. 129 DECISIONS RELEASED JULY 18, 1994 ATTORNEY/CLIENT – AGENCY AND PARTNERSHIP 04-2-3783 Stanley Weiss, et al. v. Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, et al., App. Div. (20 pp.) Senior partner in law firm who was among the draftsmen of firm’s partnership agreement — but not of a provision requiring partner who withdraws before age 65 to forfeit part of his/her payout — was not estopped from challenging applicability of the provision as a violation of R.P.C. 5.6(a), which prohibits agreements that restrict the right of a lawyer to practice after termination of the relationship, since the restrictive agreement was in effect before he became a partner. ENVIRONMENT – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE 17-2-3784 Hudson Meadows Urban Renewal Dev. Corp. and Town of Kearny v. Hackensack Meadowlands Dev. Comm’n, App. Div. (22 pp.) Where defendant commission designated former landfill as a new regional solid waste facility for non-processible waste from which plaintiffs appealed, commissions’s designation was proper, since Solid Waste Management Act provisons were followed. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-3785 State v. Marlon Dion Anderson, App. Div. (5 pp.) Where defendant, who was convicted of aggravated assault, was not present in court on first day of his trial, trial judge properly began trial, since defendant’s conduct demonstrated a knowing and voluntary absence. 14-2-3786 State v. Robert D. Cooney, App. Div. (4 pp.) Where municipal court judge convicted defendant, who was suffering from a concussion, of refusal to submit to a Breathalyzer test, trial court properly affirmed conviction, since defendant as evidenced by the videotape of his behavior in a police station knew what he was doing when he refused the test. 14-2-3787 State v. William P. Horan, App. Div. (15 pp.) Where defendant was arrested for his alleged involvement in an insurance fraud scheme and his wife could not contact him because she could not find out where they had taken him, trial court properly granted defendant’s suppression motion, since the manner in which the state investigators held the defendant in custody materially interfered with his right of access to counsel. 14-2-3788 State v. John Ingram, App. Div. (3 pp.) Where defendant pled guilty to cocaine distribution, trial court erred in denying request for post-conviction relief, since defense counsel did not tell defendant about being sentenced under the Comprehensive Drug Reform Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(2). 14-2-3789 State v. Fred Little, App. Div. (3 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of three first-degree armed robberies, trial judge erred in dismissing motion for post-conviction relief on grounds that he could not evaluate ineffectiveness of appellate counsel, since he did have jurisdiction to hear the matter, under R.3:22. 14-2-3790 State v. Victor Martinez, App. Div. (11 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of felony murder and armed robbery, trial court’s jury instructions dealing with the jury’s obligation to determine the credibility of defendant’s statement to the police did not constitute plain error, since defense counsel extensively discussed this matter during his closing statement. 14-2-3791 State v. Pat John Rago, App. Div. (4 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of second-degree possession of a firearm, trial judge erred in instructing the jury that possession of a weapon and the purpose to use it unlawfully against another need not be contemporaneous, since the jury could have believed that the defendant could have had the weapon at one time and the unlawful purpose to use it against another person at a different time. 14-2-3792 State v. Bevin Reynolds, App. Div. (6 pp.) Where defendant was convicted of murder, trial court properly denied motion for post-conviction relief — where he claimed that he was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing to establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claim — since, under State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992), an evidentiary hearing is not required to conduct an investigation into defense counsel’s strategy.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.