Two arrested with crack cocaine in Ocean Township

Two men were arrested in Ocean Township Saturday following a motor vehicle stop. Police stopped the vehicle based on a cracked front windshield and found the driver of the vehicle to be in possession of several small bags of crack cocaine and a crack pipe. The passenger was also charged as he was allegedly trying to conceal a small bag which contained crack cocaine and heroin. Both defendants were arrested and charged with drug possession based on this motor vehicle stop. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled, "Two arrested on drug charges after Ocean Township traffic stop".

Charges for possession of cocaine are governed by NJSA 2C:25-10 which provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:35-10. Possession, use or being under the influence, or failure to make lawful disposition

a. It is unlawful for any person, knowingly or purposely, to obtain, or to possess, actually or constructively, a controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog, unless the substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order form from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by P.L.1970, c.226. Any person who violates this section with respect to:

(1) A controlled dangerous substance, or its analog, classified in Schedule I, II, III or IV other than those specifically covered in this section, is guilty of a crime of the third degree except that, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3, a fine of up to $ 35,000.00 may be imposed;

As the above statute enumerates, charges for simple possession of cocaine are typically third degree offenses. Thus, this is an indictable criminal charge and will be handled at the county level. Further, there are enhanced penalties if you were charged in a school zone or near a public housing facility or park. Moreover, if you are found to be in possession of a substantial amount or "weight" of cocaine, you could be facing a second degree offense as well as possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.

Eatontown man arrested in connection with 4 robberies

Police arrested an Eatontown man Tuesday in connection with the robbery of four (4) gas stations in three towns over a five day period. According to the Asbury Park Press article, "Michael Mazza, 36, of Livingston Court, was charged Tuesday with four counts of robbery, possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, purposely causing bodily injury, two counts of possession of a weapon and criminal attempt to commit robbery." The defendant was charged with robbing gas stations in West Long Branch, Eatontown, and Ocean Township in very similar scenarios in which he allegedly threatened attendants and took off with approximately $200 to $300 each incident. The defendant is being held at the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold, New Jersey on $130,000 bail.

The statute governing robbery charges in New Jersey is N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 which provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:15-1. Robbery

a. Robbery defined. A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he:

(1) Inflicts bodily injury or uses force upon another; or

(2) Threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate bodily injury; or

(3) Commits or threatens immediately to commit any crime of the first or second degree.

An act shall be deemed to be included in the phrase "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission.

b. Grading. Robbery is a crime of the second degree, except that it is a crime of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, or is armed with, or uses or threatens the immediate use of a deadly weapon.

Murder conviction overturned based on improper admission of evidence

Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Ira E. Kreizman set a $3 million bail for a Holmdel man whose murder conviction was recently overturned by the Appellate Division. The defendant was convicted of murdering his wife, whose body was found inside her vehicle in a remote area of the PNC Bank Arts Center in 2005. The Appellate Division overturned this conviction earlier this week based on the improper admission of hearsay statements of the victim. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "$3M bail for Holmdel man with overturned murder conviction."

It is very common to see mistakes made and improperly admitted evidence when it comes to hearsay. The definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted". For example, if I testify in court that actor A told me he was going to the gym at 5 to prove that he went to the gym at 5, this is a hearsay statement. I am offering the statement which was previously made to me to prove the truth of the statement. In this case, the judge allowed the State to offer previously made statements of the victim that she intended to end her marriage to prove that she intended to end her marriage (thus giving her husband motive to kill her). This is classic hearsay and should not have been admitted. Moreover, hearsay can be admitted in certain situations if one of the hearsay exceptions apply. For example, admissions of a party is an exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, if I am a defendant in a criminal case for assault and I told the police previously that I punched the victim in the eye, this is hearsay but would be admissible based on the "admission of a party" exception to the hearsay rule. Here, the State argued that the "state of mind" exception to the hearsay rule applied to show the state of mind of the victim in that she intended to leave her husband and end the marriage. However, this exception did not apply and should not have been used because the state of mind of the victim was not a point at issue and was irrelevant to the case. The hearsay statement was being offered not to show the state of mind of the victim but instead to show that the statement was true and that her husband had a motive to murder her. Thus, the Appellate Division overruled the conviction and the case may go to trial again if it does not result in a plea agreement.

Murder case against Jersey Shore nurse dismissed

The Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office dismissed a murder charge against a nurse who previously worked at the Jersey Shore Medical Center. The woman was previously charged with murdering a 72-year-old patient by giving him an an unprescribed paralytic medication that would "make him comfortable" since his situation was terminal. Now, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Vernoia, at the request of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, dismissed the murder indictment as the state would not have been able to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the defendant had been convicted at trial, she was facing thirty (30) years to life in prison. However, she refused to take a plea offer in February to assault which would have resulted in a probationary sentence. This shows tremendous resolve on the part of the defendant as she was willing to risk significant jail time to prove her innocence. For additional information on this case, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled, "Jersey Shore nurse Lorie Hentges: Murder charge dismissed".

Iler Law Firm retained to represent Somerset County man charged with check fraud

The Iler Law Firm has been retained to represent a client charged with an alleged fraudulent check cashing scheme in Somerville, Bridgewater, Hillsborough, Raritan, and Green Brook. For additional information, see the article on NJ.com entitled "Middlesex man charged for cashing fake checks at TD Bank branches in Somerville, Bridgewater, Hillsborough, Raritan, Green Brook".

In New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-5 governs bad check offenses and provides in pertinent part:

§ 2C:21-5. Bad checks

A person who issues or passes a check or similar sight order for the payment of money, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee, commits an offense as provided for in subsection c. of this section. For the purposes of this section as well as in any prosecution for theft committed by means of a bad check, an issuer is presumed to know that the check or money order (other than a post-dated check or order) would not be paid, if:

a. The issuer had no account with the drawee at the time the check or order was issued; or

b. Payment was refused by the drawee for lack of funds, or due to a closed account, after a deposit by the payee into a bank for collection or after presentation to the drawee within 46 days after issue, and the issuer failed to make good within 10 days after receiving notice of that refusal or after notice has been sent to the issuer's last known address. Notice of refusal may be given to the issuer orally or in writing in any reasonable manner by any person.

c. An offense under this section is:

(1) a crime of the second degree if the check or money order is $ 75,000.00 or more;

(2) a crime of the third degree if the check or money order is $ 1,000.00 or more but is less than $ 75,000.00;

(3) a crime of the fourth degree if the check or money order is $ 200.00 or more but is less than $ 1,000.00;

(4) a disorderly persons offense if the check or money order is less than $ 200.00.

Two Ocean County men charged with robbery and sexual assault

A very bizarre story in the Asbury Park Press this morning. Two men have been charged with robbery and sexual assault after allegedly robbing a man at knifepoint and sexually assaulting him. The robbery and assault allegedly occurred earlier this month at a motel on Route 9. According to the article, two men held the motel guest down (another man) at knifepoint, threatened to kill him, stole $1,200.00 in cash, a cell phone and a wallet from the man, and sexually assaulted him. The defendants are charged with conspiracy, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, criminal restraint, terroristic threats, and illegal weapons possession. They are both being held at the Ocean County Jail in Toms River, New Jersey with bail amounts of $500,000 and $230,000 respectively.

It is very rare to see a robbery and a sexual assault committed by two men on another man. These charges are obviously extremely serious as you can see from the high bail amounts and both defendants are facing many years in jail if convicted of these crimes.

Major Heroin bust in Toms River

Police arrested several individuals and confiscated 719 bags of heroin in Toms River this week after a three month investigation. On Thursday, the Toms River Police Special Enforcement Team raided an Alexandria Drive home to find heroin, drug paraphernalia, and prescription drugs inside. This led to the arrest of five individuals and a sixth person remains at large. The defendants were charged with possession of heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and possession of heroin with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school zone. The defendants were arrested and are being held on various bail amounts at the Ocean County Jail in Toms River. For additional information, see the Asbury Park Press article entitled "Five arrested in Toms River heroin bust".

Two DWI stops in Monmouth County this weekend

The Monmouth County DWI Taskforce will conduct two drunk driving checkpoints this weekend in an attempt to apprehend any individual who is driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The first DWI stop will be held in Wall Township on Route 34 from 11 p.m. this evening through 3 a.m. tomorrow morning. The second DWI stop will be held tomorrow night in Spring Lake Heights on Route 71. This checkpoint will also be held from 11 p.m. through 3 a.m.

As long as certain administrative procedures are followed, DWI checkpoints are constitutional, legal, and valid in New Jersey as a traffic stop in drunk driving cases. Thus, it is important to be aware of these DWI stops and remain under the legal limit (.08% BAC) when driving through a DWI checkpoint.

Final Restraining Orders in New Jersey

I often represent clients who are facing a Final Restraining Order (known as an "FRO) in New Jersey. Essentially, after a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") is issued, a Final Restraining Order hearing must be held within ten (10) days. This hearing will be held at the Superior Court in the county in which the restraining order was issued. For example, if the restraining order was issued in Woodbridge, New Jersey, the hearing will be conducted at the Middlesex County Superior Court in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Municipal Courts do not deal with restraining orders in New Jersey.

There are many factors that the court will consider at the FRO hearing including a previous history of domestic violence between the parties (including any threats, harassment, and physical abuse), the existence of immediate danger to person or property, the financial circumstances of the parties, and the best interests of the victim and any children.

There is also a wide range of relief the Court can grant if a Final Restraining Order is issued. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29, this relief includes:

(1) An order restraining the defendant from subjecting the victim to domestic violence, as defined in this act.

(2) An order granting exclusive possession to the plaintiff of the residence or household regardless of whether the residence or household is jointly or solely owned by the parties or jointly or solely leased by the parties. This order shall not in any manner affect title or interest to any real property held by either party or both jointly. If it is not possible for the victim to remain in the residence, the court may order the defendant to pay the victim's rent at a residence other than the one previously shared by the parties if the defendant is found to have a duty to support the victim and the victim requires alternative housing.

(3) An order providing for parenting time. The order shall protect the safety and well-being of the plaintiff and minor children and shall specify the place and frequency of parenting time. Parenting time arrangements shall not compromise any other remedy provided by the court by requiring or encouraging contact between the plaintiff and defendant. Orders for parenting time may include a designation of a place of parenting time away from the plaintiff, the participation of a third party, or supervised parenting time.

(a) The court shall consider a request by a custodial parent who has been subjected to domestic violence by a person with parenting time rights to a child in the parent's custody for an investigation or evaluation by the appropriate agency to assess the risk of harm to the child prior to the entry of a parenting time order. Any denial of such a request must be on the record and shall only be made if the judge finds the request to be arbitrary or capricious.

(b) The court shall consider suspension of the parenting time order and hold an emergency hearing upon an application made by the plaintiff certifying under oath that the defendant's access to the child pursuant to the parenting time order has threatened the safety and well-being of the child.

(4) An order requiring the defendant to pay to the victim monetary compensation for losses suffered as a direct result of the act of domestic violence. The order may require the defendant to pay the victim directly, to reimburse the Victims of Crime Compensation Board for any and all compensation paid by the Victims of Crime Compensation Board directly to or on behalf of the victim, and may require that the defendant reimburse any parties that may have compensated the victim, as the court may determine. Compensatory losses shall include, but not be limited to, loss of earnings or other support, including child or spousal support, out-of-pocket losses for injuries sustained, cost of repair or replacement of real or personal property damaged or destroyed or taken by the defendant, cost of counseling for the victim, moving or other travel expenses, reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and compensation for pain and suffering. Where appropriate, punitive damages may be awarded in addition to compensatory damages.

(5) An order requiring the defendant to receive professional domestic violence counseling from either a private source or a source appointed by the court and, in that event, requiring the defendant to provide the court at specified intervals with documentation of attendance at the professional counseling. The court may order the defendant to pay for the professional counseling. No application by the defendant to dissolve a final order which contains a requirement for attendance at professional counseling pursuant to this paragraph shall be granted by the court unless, in addition to any other provisions required by law or conditions ordered by the court, the defendant has completed all required attendance at such counseling.

(6) An order restraining the defendant from entering the residence, property, school, or place of employment of the victim or of other family or household members of the victim and requiring the defendant to stay away from any specified place that is named in the order and is frequented regularly by the victim or other family or household members.

(7) An order restraining the defendant from making contact with the plaintiff or others, including an order forbidding the defendant from personally or through an agent initiating any communication likely to cause annoyance or alarm including, but not limited to, personal, written, or telephone contact with the victim or other family members, or their employers, employees, or fellow workers, or others with whom communication would be likely to cause annoyance or alarm to the victim.

(8) An order requiring that the defendant make or continue to make rent or mortgage payments on the residence occupied by the victim if the defendant is found to have a duty to support the victim or other dependent household members; provided that this issue has not been resolved or is not being litigated between the parties in another action.

(9) An order granting either party temporary possession of specified personal property, such as an automobile, checkbook, documentation of health insurance, an identification document, a key, and other personal effects.

(10) An order awarding emergency monetary relief, including emergency support for minor children, to the victim and other dependents, if any. An ongoing obligation of support shall be determined at a later date pursuant to applicable law.

(11) An order awarding temporary custody of a minor child. The court shall presume that the best interests of the child are served by an award of custody to the non-abusive parent.

(12) An order requiring that a law enforcement officer accompany either party to the residence or any shared business premises to supervise the removal of personal belongings in order to ensure the personal safety of the plaintiff when a restraining order has been issued. This order shall be restricted in duration.

(13) (Deleted by amendment, P.L. 1995, c. 242).

(14) An order granting any other appropriate relief for the plaintiff and dependent children, provided that the plaintiff consents to such relief, including relief requested by the plaintiff at the final hearing, whether or not the plaintiff requested such relief at the time of the granting of the initial emergency order.

(15) An order that requires that the defendant report to the intake unit of the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court for monitoring of any other provision of the order.

(16) In addition to the order required by this subsection prohibiting the defendant from possessing any firearm, the court may also issue an order prohibiting the defendant from possessing any other weapon enumerated in subsection r. of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1 and ordering the search for and seizure of any firearm or other weapon at any location where the judge has reasonable cause to believe the weapon is located. The judge shall state with specificity the reasons for and scope of the search and seizure authorized by the order.

(17) An order prohibiting the defendant from stalking or following, or threatening to harm, to stalk or to follow, the complainant or any other person named in the order in a manner that, taken in the context of past actions of the defendant, would put the complainant in reasonable fear that the defendant would cause the death or injury of the complainant or any other person. Behavior prohibited under this act includes, but is not limited to, behavior prohibited under the provisions of P.L. 1992, c. 209.

(18) An order requiring the defendant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

New Jersey's Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC)

If you are convicted of a drunk driving offense in New Jersey, you will be sentenced to the Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (known as "IDRC"). If you are a first time offender, you will be sentenced to a minimum of twelve (12) hours in the IDRC. If you are a second time offender, you will be sentenced to a minimum of fourty-eight (48) hours in the IDRC. If you are a third time offender, you will be sentenced to 180 days in jail (half of which can be served at an inpatient rehabilitation facility). When you are released from jail or rehab, you must submit to a twelve (12) hour IDRC evaluation.

The authority for IDRC comes from section (f) of the DWI statute in New Jersey, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. The IDRC program is designed to evaluate and provide alcohol and driver education classes to those convicted of drunk driving in New Jersey. In the program, participants attend mandatory alcohol and highway safety education courses. The program also evaluates participants for potential drug and alcohol problems and determines any necessary treatment. If treatment is necessary, the IDRC refers the participant to a provider for a minimum 16-week treatment program. The participant may also supplement any treatment with their own self-help meetings (such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)). Finally, the IDRC monitors compliance and reports any issues to the Municipal Court and the Motor Vehicle Commission. The failure to attend IDRC as required by a DWI sentence typically results in jail time.

 

Charges for Underage Gambling in New Jersey

A charge for underage gambling in New Jersey can have serious consequences for a young person. Under N.J.S.A. 5:12-119, an underage gambling charge is a disorderly persons offense which means it is a criminal charge and will lead to a permanent criminal record if convicted. Moreover, the statute requires a fine between $500 and $1000 and a six (6) month license suspension.

The real issue with these underage gambling charges is there are no plea bargains offered by the State. Thus, the State requires the defendant to either plead guilty to the charge or stand trial. As a result, it is imperative that you contact an experienced criminal defense lawyer to represent you at trial. There is no reason to plead guilty to the offense: take the case to trial and make the State prove the charges against you beyond a reasonable doubt. Many times the State's witnesses fail to appear and the case can be dismissed against you. Regardless, it is essential for your future that you defend yourself at trial and attempt to avoid a permanent criminal charge on your record. This can have serious implications in terms of employment and educational opportunities. If convicted, you can file for an expungement of the conviction five (5) years after the disposition of your sentence.

Howell man facing child pornography charges

A 28-year-old Howell man has been charged with possession and distribution of child pornography according to the Asbury Park Press. The defendant is facing three counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The first is a second degree offense for allegedly distributing pornographic images of children. The other two counts are fourth degree offenses for allegedly possession videos which contain child pornography. The defendant is being held at the Monmouth County Jail in Freehold, New Jersey on $80,000.00 bail.

These are very serious charges as a second degree offense includes between five (5) to ten (10) years in prison if convicted and there is a presumption of incarceration (meaning that a probationary sentence is unlikely). The other two charges, fourth degree offenses, include up to eighteen (18) months in jail for each count. Moreover, because of the sexual nature of the crimes, the defendant is facing Megan's Law registration requirements if he pleads guilty or is convicted of these offenses.

DWI checkpoint to be held in Manalapan this weekend

DWI checkpoints are often held throughout New Jersey in an attempt to detect, identify, and arrest drunk drivers. They are even more prevalant during the summertime at the Jersey Shore. Under New Jersey law, DWI checkpoints are a valid means of apprehending drivers who are under the influence of alcohol as long as certain procedures are followed by law enforcement.
 

This weekend the Monmouth County DWI Task Force will conduct a DWI stop on Route 9 South in Manalapan from the hours of 11 p.m. Friday night through 3 a.m. on Saturday morning. According to the Asbury Park Press article, "[t]ask force members and officers from the Manalapan Police Department will pull vehicles from the southbound lanes into the Sun Bank parking lot to determine drivers' sobriety, said Brielle Police Chief Michael W. Palmer, task force coordinator."

Please keep this checkpoint in mind as you plan your travels for the weekend.