A series of notices to the bar were issued last week covering a number of issues in the courts arising from the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision in State v. Andujar, implementation of landlord tenant settlements, and rules changes.
Landlord Tenant Rule Relaxation
The Court announced that it would relax and supplement the rules of court in furtherance of the provisions of new legislation that establish additional protections and remedies for certain tenants and landlords affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Courts are now required to dismiss certain cases if the tenant files a certification that the tenant lives in a household with an income below 120% of the county’s area median income. For landlords, courts are required to process complaints to pursue collection of unpaid rents that accrued during the covered period (March 1, 2020, through Aug. 31, 2021) in the Special Civil Part, regardless of the amount in controversy. The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) had advocated for the delay of mandatory settlement conferences in landlord tenant cases in anticipation of these new requirements, and to allow ample opportunity for parties to avail themselves of significant resources available for rental assistance.
Omnibus Court Rule Amendments
Several amendments were made to the New Jersey Court Rules, becoming effective on Sept. 1 and Oct. 1, where so noted. A copy of the amendments can be found at njcourts.gov. Among the changes are: the exclusion of all records in actions for name changes pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:52-1 and Rule 4:72-1, et seq., which was urged by the NJSBA; supplemental mediation training; the issuance and contents of a search warrant obtained electronically; sentencing pursuant to a negotiated plea disposition under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-12 (waiver of mandatory minimum and extended terms); parameters regarding support for a child beyond age 23; defining “suspension of judicial enforcement” in child support matters; venue relative to adoption of a child; and clarifications in connection with the plea-by-mail process in municipal courts, including a requirement suggested by the NJSBA to ensure defense attorneys receive notice of the Court’s final action.
New Rule 5:10-17 addresses co-parent adoption complaints, outlining the pleading requirements, venue, procedure, notice requirements, and final hearing requirements. Also amended is the guilty plea-by-mail system to incorporate electronic pleas.
Grand Jury Rules Amendments
The Supreme Court has issued notices amending key aspects of the grand jury process. The NJSBA supported changes to Rule 3:6-6, which has been amended to provide that the prosecuting attorney shall not be present during grand jury deliberations, but the grand jury may pose questions to the prosecutor, so long as those questions and any response or colloquy are made on the record. The amendment becomes effective on Sept. 1.
The Court also issued a supplement to Directive #23-06, Grand Jury Standards – Implementation and Questionnaire, rescinding former Standard 2 and ending the policy and practice of general background checks of grand jurors, effective immediately. The supplement was issued as a result of the Court’s decision in State v. Andjuar, Docket A-6-20. The Court considered the propriety of a criminal history check on a prospective juror in this challenge by the defendant of a fair trial based on racial discrimination.
The facts of the case were as follows: A Black male was questioned at sidebar for about a half hour and assured the court of his belief that he could be a fair and impartial juror. The potential juror disclosed having two cousins in law enforcement and knowing many who had been accused of crimes. The state challenged the potential juror for cause, asking that he be removed and noting that he had a lot of background information and knew terms used in the criminal justice system. Another prosecutor noted the potential juror’s connection with criminals, questioning his impartiality as a juror. After denying the state’s motion, the prosecution ran a background check on the potential juror, revealing an outstanding warrant in municipal court.
The Supreme Court held that courts, not the parties, oversee the jury selection process, and that any party seeking to run a criminal history check must present a reasonable, individualized, good-faith basis for the request and obtain permission from the trial judge.
For a full copy of the notices to the bar, go to njcourts.gov. For a copy of the NJSBA’s comments to the proposed rule amendments, go to njsba.com.
This is a status report provided by the New Jersey State Bar Association on recently passed and pending legislation, regulations, gubernatorial nominations and/or appointments of interest to lawyers, as well as the involvement of the NJSBA as amicus in appellate court matters. To learn more, visit njsba.com.