"On leave granted, we review the trial court's denial of defendant Rachel Marshall's motion to dismiss, as time-barred, the four discrete counts of the instant indictment that charge her individually with crimes.... [T]he trial court held that a ten-year statute of limitations should apply to the racketeering conspiracy charges in Count One.

Such a ten-year time period preceding January 26, 2009 would clearly incorporate defendant's alleged defalcations in 2001 concerning the real estate and liquor license transactions and the associated bank deposits. The trial court also found that the same ten-year statute of limitations it deemed applicable to the racketeering conspiracy charge in Count One should also be applied to the underlying substantive charges.... [T]he trial court erred in declaring that a ten-year limitations statute applies to this indictment rather than the five-year ordinary limitations period under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6b(1).

The ten-year interval described in the definitional portion of the racketeering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1d(1), is not a statute of limitations. Rather, it is a proximity measure that is part of the definition of an actionable 'pattern of racketeering activity,' requiring at least two acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to be committed within a ten-year time span.... Consequently, a five-year limitations period, rather than a ten-year period, governs this indictment....

These factual issues of timing and abandonment cannot be decided on the present record. A fair and full assessment of defendant's statute-of-limitations defense as to Count One must await the development of the facts at trial.... We reach a different conclusion as to the three substantive counts of the indictment....

We discern no reason why the normal limitations principles governing substantive crimes should not pertain here. Under those principles, as enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6b(1), defendant cannot be charged with substantive crimes more than five years after their alleged occurrence, absent a tolling argument or some other exception not invoked by the State here.... Those allegations, in essence, hearken back to defendant's actions in 2001 and do not allege on her part any new acts within the five-year statutory period." (Michael A. Robbins)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a6306-08.pdf

This appeal requires us to determine (1) the criteria for application of the 'suspended judgment' provision of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.51(a)(1); and (2) whether successful completion of a period of suspended judgment necessarily leads to the removal of the underlying finding of abuse or neglect from the central registry maintained by the Division pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.11....

In summary, we conclude that the suspended judgment provision of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.51(a)(1) is generally applicable when a Family Part judge has held a dispositional hearing and is not prepared to enter an order returning the child to the parent or placing the child with the Division, but instead proposes to give the parent an opportunity to maintain the family unit based upon adherence to the particular remedial requirements established pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.52(a).

We also conclude that successful completion of a period of suspended judgment does not result in expungement of the underlying finding of abuse or neglect. [W]e find no basis to conclude that the Legislature intended the suspended judgment provision of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.51(a)(1) to provide the equivalent of PTI in abuse and neglect cases.... Finally, we affirm the order on appeal, based upon our conclusion that a suspended judgment was not a viable option at the time the order was entered and that, in any event, the Family Part judge did not abuse his discretion...." (Carol Willner, Designated Counsel,for R.M.; Amy Vasquez, Designated Counsel, Law Guardian)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a2081-08.pdf

DYFS v. J.C. and T.S.L./In the Matter of J.D.L.C., ? N.J. Super. ?, 2010 N.J. Super. LEXIS 24 (February 11, 2010) - Motion for Leave to Appeal termination of parental rights out of time denied.

"The judgment in question was entered on August 18, 2008, and the child was adopted on July 17, 2009 -- nearly sixteen months and more than four months, respectively -- before the filing of the motions at hand.

Notwithstanding that we liberally grant such motions in guardianship appeals, see N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. R.G., 354 N.J. Super. 202 (App. Div. 2002), we conclude that defendants' extraordinary delay coupled with the child's adoption requires denial of defendants' motions....

We find OPR's delay in seeking leave to file a notice of appeal to be unreasonable even when judged by our expansive approach in guardianship appeals. Considering the overarching goal of permanency for children caught up in such litigation, ... , it would simply be unconscionable for this court to permit an appeal at such a late date....

The policy that adoption creates a new family unit without fear of interference from the child's natural parents would be disserved if we were to permit the filing of defendants' nascent guardianship appeals at this late date." (Richard Foster, A.D.P.D., for J.C. and T.L.S.)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1683-09a1684-09.pdf

Location: 1 Jean Walling Civic Center Drive
East Brunswick, NJ 08816

Phone: (732) 390-6915
Fax: (732) 390-6913

Court sessions are held Mondays at 9:00 a.m., Tuesdays at 5:00 p.m. and Wednesdays at 9:00 a.m. The judges in East Brunswick are: Hon. A. Todd Mayo, Hon. Christine M. Heitman, and Hon. Paul J. Endler. East Brunswick Police issue a heavy amount of traffic and speeding tickets along Rt. 18. A lot of DWI and criminal arrests are also made in East Brunswick.

Location: 47 Broad Street
Eatontown, NJ 07724

Phone: (732) 389-7612
Fax: (732) 389-4414

Court sessions are held on Thursdays at 9:00 a.m for traffic and 11:00 a.m. for criminal matters. The judge in Eatontown court is the Honorable Mark Apostolou, J.M.C. The court administrator is Suzann Lorusso. Eatontown police issue a large amount of traffic and speeding tickets. Some DWI and criminal arrests are also made in Eatontown.

Location: 255 Middle Road
Hazlet Twp., NJ 07730

Phone: (732) 264-2231

Court sessions are held on Thursdays. The judge in Hazlet is the Honorable Thomas F.X. Foley, J.M.C. The prosecutor is Linda Grasso Jones, Esq. Hazlet sees a lot of DWI and minor criminal arrests. A good deal of traffic and speeding tickets are also issued in Hazlet Township.

Location: 25 Neptune Blvd
Neptune, NJ 07753

Phone: (732) 988-5200 x 282

Court sessions are Thursdays at 12:00 p.m. The judge in Neptune Township Court is the Honorable Robin Wernik, J.M.C. The prosecutor is James N. Butler, Esq. Neptune police issue a large amount of traffic and speeding tickets. Some DWI and criminal arrests are also made each month in Neptune Township.

State v. Eddie Valentine, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4986-06T4 (February 2, 2010) - Conviction reversed. "We reverse the conviction and order a new trial due to the cumulative effect of the compounding missteps that occurred in the Law Division that appreciably erode our confidence in the jury's verdict.

Significantly, because this case turned primarily upon the strength of the identification of defendant by the victim, we have reservations about the failure of defendant's trial attorney to press for and obtain a Wade hearing. Although defendant did not testify in his own defense at trial, he presented an alibi defense and challenged the State's claim that he was present at the time of the robbery.

These circumstances, along with multiple potentially problematic identification procedures employed by the police should have triggered the request for such a hearing by defense counsel, unless there was a reasonable strategic reason not to do so.

Given our uncertainty as to whether defendant was deprived of fundamental tools necessary to foster an adequate defense, in addition to our apprehension that the trial court may have unintentionally misled the jury during deliberations through an uncorrected slip of the tongue, along with certain inflammatory comments of the prosecutor, we reverse and remand for a new trial." (Brian O'Reilly, Designated Counsel)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4986-06.pdf

Location: 125 Corlies Ave # 2
Allenhurst, NJ 07711

Phone: (732) 531-3217
Fax: (732) 531-8694

Court is held on the 3rd Thursday of each month. The judge in Allenhurst is the Honorable George Cieri, J.M.C. Allenhurst court hears a fair amount of DWI and traffic matters, such as speeding tickets. Some minor criminal arrests are also made in Allenhurst.

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(b).... The Appellate Division, in an unpublished opinion, agreed with defendant's argument that a conviction for stalking requires a showing of defendant's purpose or knowledge of the impact of his behavior on his victim and, further, requires a showing that the conduct was repeated.

However, the Appellate Division held that the trial court's instruction to the jury, which tracked the model jury charge for stalking, satisfactorily expressed those requirements.... [B]ased on the statutory language and the history to the statutory offense of stalking, we do not discern a legislative intent to restrict the applicability of the anti-stalking statute to a stalker-defendant who purposefully or knowingly intended that his course of conduct would cause a reasonable victim to fear bodily injury or death.

Rather the plain language of the statutory offense, reasonably read, prohibits a defendant from purposefully or knowingly engaging in a course of conduct, as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:12-10(a)(1), that would cause such fear in an objectively reasonable person. A statute's culpability requirement generally applies to all elements of a crime unless a contrary intent may be discerned. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(c)(1). Here we find such a contrary intent.

We find that the Legislature intended to cast a wide net of protection for stalking victims by broadly prohibiting and punishing persistent, unwanted, and frightening behaviors.... We hold that the statutory offense reaches and punishes one who engages in a course of stalking conduct even if that person is operating under the motivation of an obsessed and disturbed love that purportedly obscures appreciation of the terror that his or her conduct would reasonably cause to the victimized person. Defendant's claim of error in the jury charge given by the trial court is therefore rejected." (Warren S. Hecht; Michael J. Sullivan for amicus curiae ACDL-NJ)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/A10108StatevFareedGandhi.pdf

Phone: (732) 657-8121 ext. 3407

The judge in Manchester court is the Honorable Daniel F. Sahin, J.M.C. The prosecutor is Valter Must, Esq. A large amount of speeding and other traffic tickets are issued in Manchester Township. Manchester Police also make a fair amount of DWI and minor criminal arrests.

Location: One Municipal Plaza
Asbury Park, New Jersey 07712

Phone: (732) 775-1765
Fax: (732) 988-6935

The judge in Asbury Park court is the Honorable Mark T. Apostolou, J.M.C. The Court Administrator is Patricia Green. Asbury Park Police make a large amount of arrests for drug possession, robbery, burglary, assault and DWI. A fair share of traffic and speeding tickets are also issued in Asbury Park.

Location: 279 Broadway (Corner of Broadway and N. Fifth Ave)
Long Branch, NJ 07740

Phone: (732) 571-6500
Fax: (732) 571-0106

Court Sessions: Tuesday 8:15 a.m., Wednesday 3:00 p.m.

The judge in Long Branch is the Honorable George Cieri. The Court Administrator is Terri L. Turner, CMCA. Long Branch police make a lot of DWI and criminal arrests. A heavy amount of speeding and other traffic tickets are also issued in Long Branch.

Location: 556 Tinton Ave
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

Phone: (732) 542-0222

The judge in Tinton Falls is the Honorable Richard B. Nixon, J.M.C. The court administrator is Victoria Donlon. Tinton Falls police issue a large amount of traffic and speeding tickets, especially along Rt. 18. A fair amount of DWI and criminal arrests are also made in Tinton Falls.