Supreme Court Final Oral Argument Schedule for Sept. 24, 2014
The following is the Supreme Court's schedule for
oral arguments on Sept. 24, 2014. The issues before the Supreme Court are
outlined in the Appellate Division opinion in each case. If you are planning to
view the Webcast of Supreme Court arguments, you may want to review the opinion
under appeal in order to have a better understanding of the issues before the
Court. The opinions are in Adobe Acrobat Pdf format.
To view the argument schedule and corresponding opinions for the Sept. 23, 2014 Webcast, click here.
Please note that some of the Appellate Division opinions listed below have not been approved for publication, and that pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 1:36, no unpublished opinion shall constitute precedent or be binding on any court.
(The following statements of issues on appeal are prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. They have been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interest of brevity not all issues may have been summarized).
A-3/4-13 State v. Michael Sumulikoski/State v. Artur Sopel (072957)
Does New Jersey have territorial jurisdiction to try New Jersey teachers who had sexual contact with New Jersey high school students in Germany while chaperoning a school trip?
A-34-13 Davis v. Husain (072425)
Was defendant entitled to a new trial as a result of the trial judge’s post-verdict, ex parte discussions with the jury during which one juror commented about defendant failing to place his hand on the bible while being sworn to testify?
A-31-13 State v. James J. Revie (072600)
Is a defendant who is convicted of a third offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI) more than ten years after his second DWI conviction entitled to a second step-down in sentencing under N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a)(3) after having already received a step-down in sentencing on his second DWI conviction?
A-36-13 State v. K.S. (072608)
In rejecting defendant’s application for pre-trial intervention, did the prosecutor improperly rely on prior charges that had been dismissed to find that defendant had a history and propensity for violence and that he had engaged in a pattern of antisocial behavior?