Vincent S. Haneman

The case involved the appeal of defendant Kremens' first-degree murder conviction for fatally shooting a state trooper, after a jury declined to recommend life imprisonment. Following a prior remand, the court examined claims that trial counsel failed to allow the defendant to testify on the voluntariness of his confession and on guilt, as well as issues regarding an unused witness and jury selection under Witherspoon v. Illinois. The court found that the defendant, advised by experienced counsel, had knowingly waived his right to testify after full discussions of the risks and benefits, including his criminal record, and that his current allegations of police brutality were not credible. It rejected the Witherspoon claim after reviewing the voir dire, deemed the witness issue abandoned, and affirmed the conviction while withholding entry of judgment pending related U.S. Supreme Court cases on the death penalty.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by Cole National Corp., an Ohio company seeking to sell eyeglasses in New Jersey Sears stores, to an administrative rule (Rule 28) adopted by the State Board of Examiners of Ophthalmic Dispensers and Ophthalmic Technicians. The rule barred licensed dispensers from practicing under any name other than their own, with a grandfather clause for pre-1955 trade or corporate names. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and held the rule invalid. The court reasoned that the statute authorizing the Board to adopt rules for public health and safety did not empower it to restrict corporate or trade-name practice, that the rule lacked a legitimate connection to the statutory purpose, and that it instead served to protect the economic interests of existing individual dispensers against competition.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved a challenge by commercial and industrial property owners to the Carlstadt Sewerage Authority's jurisdiction over only a portion of the borough and the validity of its sewer service charges, including escalating connection fees, a capacity charge based on building square footage, and a per-gallon use charge, all tied to a new system financed by bonds. The court held that the Authority could be established for part of the municipality, that the capacity charge was invalid because it was not proportional to use or benefit, and that the escalating connection fees as structured were not authorized, while rejecting defenses of estoppel and laches. On the connection fees, the court reasoned that the governing statute permits such fees to include a fair contribution toward prior debt service costs so that all benefited properties, including those connecting later, ultimately share in construction expenses, allowing for roughly equal rather than precisely equal charges within user classes. The judgment was modified to permit the Authority to adopt a revised schedule of connection fees consistent with this approach.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case concerned the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2A:170-29(1), a Disorderly Persons Act provision making it unlawful to utter loud and offensive, profane, or indecent language in public places. The defendant was convicted in municipal court and on appeal for using profanity toward a state trooper during a roadside stop, with the Appellate Division affirming. The New Jersey Supreme Court held the statute constitutional by construing it narrowly to prohibit only words spoken loudly in public that are likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace or offend a listener's sensibilities, given the speaker's intent or reckless disregard. On the facts presented, however, the court found the language did not meet that standard and therefore reversed the conviction.

criminal lawfree speech

The case concerned whether a licensed real estate broker violated N.J.S. 2A:170-78 by preparing a real estate sales contract, including selecting a form, inserting terms, and drafting additional clauses such as a mortgage contingency provision. Lower courts convicted the defendant and struck down the exemption in N.J.S. 2A:170-81(d) as an unconstitutional legislative attempt to authorize the practice of law. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding that the exemption provision was a valid exception from the criminal penalty rather than an affirmative authorization of legal practice, and therefore the defendant's conduct fell within the statutory protection from punishment. The Court did not decide whether the acts constituted the unauthorized practice of law.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a landlord-tenant dispute in which the tenant repaired a cracked toilet in her leased apartment after the landlord did not respond to her reports of the issue and then deducted the $85.72 repair cost from her July rent payment. The landlord brought a summary dispossess action for nonpayment of rent, and the County District Court granted judgment for possession on the ground that the landlord had no duty to repair and the tenant therefore had no right to offset the expense. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that a residential lease carries an implied warranty of habitability obligating the landlord to maintain essential facilities, that the tenant may make necessary repairs after adequate notice and deduct the reasonable cost from rent, and that a dispute over the amount of rent due raises a jurisdictional issue reviewable on appeal from a dispossess judgment.

propertyprocedure