20-2-3261 B.C. v. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. and Permanency, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Koblitz, J.A.D.) (16 pp.) In the context of a grandparent visitation appeal, the court discusses the interplay between the FN abuse and neglect docket and the FD nondissolution docket. The court reverses the dismissal of the FD grandparent visitation complaint and directs that it be heard in conjunction with the ongoing FN neglect matter by the same judge. The court also directs reconsideration of the judge’s FN order banning contact between the grandfather and the children in light of the preference expressed by the mother, who has legal custody of three of the four children. (Approved for Publication)

20-2-3312 N.J. Div. of Child Prot. and Permanency v. J.L.G. (newly published opinion for May 17, 2017) (N.J. Super. App) (Simonelli, J.A.D.) (23 pp.) In this Title 9 matter, Y.A., the mother of a seven-year-old child, viciously beat the child with her hand, fist, and a metal spatula, inflicting significant physical injuries that were evident and painful to the child several days later and required medical intervention. Defendant J.L.G. admitted he was present when Y.A. beat the child with her hand. He did not intercede to stop the beating; rather, he walked away into the next room to keep the child he had with Y.A. from seeing the beating continue and told Y.A. to stop hitting the child because she could get in trouble. Defendant did not report the abuse. The trial court found that Y.A. abused or neglected the child within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4)(b) by unreasonably inflicting excessive corporal punishment. Y.A. did not appeal. The trial court also found that defendant abused or neglected the child within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 9:6- 8.21(c)(4)(b) by failing to provide the child with proper supervision by unreasonably allowing the infliction of excessive corporal punishment by the child’s mother. We affirmed. (Approved for Publication)

20-1-3313 N.J. Div. of Child Prot. and Permanency v. J.L.G. N.J. Sup. Ct. (per curiam) (2 pp.) The issue in this appeal is whether defendant abused or neglected a seven-year-old girl within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21(c)(4), by failing to provide the child with proper supervision and unreasonably allowing the infliction of excessive punishment by her mother. The Family Part judge found that defendant violated the statute. The Appellate Division affirmed. The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Division’s per curiam opinion.

14-1-3271 State v. Habeeb Robinson, N.J. Sup. Ct. (Rabner, C.J.) (42 pp.) Both the trial court and the Appellate Division directed the State to disclose the statements of two eyewitnesses, photos used in the identification process, any incident report of the crime prepared by the police, and a surveillance video. Rule 3:4-2(c)(1)(B) required disclosure of the reports and the photos but not the video. The Court also clarifies and reframes the Rule to help ensure that it strikes the proper balance between two important concerns: a defendant’s liberty interest and the State’s ability to seek to detain high risk defendants before trial.

14-1-3303 State v. Rodney J. Miles, N.J. Sup. Ct. (Timpone, J.) (17 pp.) New Jersey now joins the majority of jurisdictions in returning to the Blockburger same-elements test as the sole test for determining what constitutes the “same offense” for purposes of double jeopardy. In the interest of justice, the Court applied both the same elements test and the now-replaced same-evidence test in this case; going forward, for offenses committed after the issuance of this opinion, the same-elements test will serve as the singular framework for determining whether two charges are the same offense for purposes of double-jeopardy analysis