Who qualifies as a &quot;disreputable person&quot; for purposes of probation? Under N.J. Stat. § 2C:45-1.b.(6), one of the standard terms of criminal probation that may be imposed in New Jersey is: To refrain from frequenting unlawful or disreputable places or consorting with disreputable persons; I'm having a little difficulty understanding what criteria would have to be met for a person to be considered &quot;disreputable&quot; enough for probationers in New Jersey to be obligated to avoid &quot;consorting&quot; with them. The term does not appear to be defined in New Jersey statutes. It (or similar phraseology) appears in the statutes of some other jurisdictions, so I suspect that it is a legal term of art with a specific meaning rather than a vague admonition against socializing or doing business with the kinds of people that my parents warned me about. The most obvious and reasonable definition would be someone with a criminal record, but if that is the case, it would make more sense for the statute to just come out and say it rather than use a less clear term. It would also be unclear if any criminal record qualifies a person as being disreputable or if the determination is based on the recency and/or severity of the criminal conduct (e.g. multiple felony sexual assaults of a child in the past year versus one misdemeanor expired fishing license rap from 1972). What is the definition of a &quot;disreputable person&quot; under New Jersey law? Specifically, is it defined in terms of objective criteria (e.g. more than X felony convictions in the past Y years) or is it based on a subjective (&quot;whole person&quot;) analysis with multiple areas of inquiry (e.g. criminal record, general attitude, personality traits, credit rating, history of losing civil lawsuits, professional ethics violations not amounting to criminal conduct, whether they are currently suspended from Law Stack Exchange, life accomplishments, neighborhood rumor and gossip, etc.)? To be clear, I am asking if this term is defined or has a generally accepted legal meaning, not asking for personal advice. I am not personally on probation in New Jersey, and if I was, I would address this question to my lawyer and/or probation officer rather than the Internet. If this term has been defined in another jurisdiction under circumstances where a New Jersey court would be likely to adopt a similar definition, I would accept that as an answer. An answer might look something like this: In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Smith v. State [cite], &quot;disreputable person&quot; was defined as any person with two or more felony convictions in the past ten years or who was convicted of an offense requiring sex offender registration regardless of how long ago. It was specifically held that evidence that Probationer's consort had had his nursing license revoked for professional misconduct six months prior to consorting with Probationer was entirely irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence of disreputability for purposes of revocation as no criminal conviction had resulted from said conduct.
It refers to whoever the judge reasonably says it refers to. The referent of that specific clause N.J.S.A. 2C:45-1(b)(6) is not analyzed in any court ruling that I have been able to locate, but case law such as State v. Krueger, 241 N.J. Super. 244 has addressed other discretionary provisions of the statute, and has upheld the propriety of such discretionary acts as ordering restitution &quot;as long as (1) there is a reasonable relationship between the restitution and the defendant’s rehabilitation, and (2) there is a factual underpinning supportive of the restitution&quot;. The court concludes that we are entirely satisfied that the debarment was reasonably designed to “assist” defendant in “leading] a law-abiding life” and was thus permitted under N.J.S.A. 2C:45-la....The condition of probation was substantially related to an appropriate penological and rehabilitative objective followed by numerous citations.
I will use Washington law to lay the landscape for a rape charge. First degree rape is sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion, either with kidnapping, (apparent) threat of a deadly weapon, beating the victim, or feloniously entering the building of vehicle where the victim is. This is not the case under discussion. What does potentially apply is second degree rape, which is sexual intercourse by other types of forcible compulsion, or (b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated, or various similar descriptions of diminished capacity (a developmental disability plus perpetrator supervisory authority, etc). Subparagraph (b) is crucial here, and we turn to the definitionL &quot;Mental incapacity&quot; is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause. Also to be clear on &quot;forcible compulsion&quot;, &quot;Forcible compulsion&quot; means physical force which overcomes resistance, or a threat, express or implied, that places a person in fear of death or physical injury to herself or himself or another person, or in fear that she or he or another person will be kidnapped In the case of intercourse with an intoxicated person, the government must prove that the victim's condition prevented them from understanding the nature or consequences of intercourse. Now compare the law in Minnesota, otherwise analogous, but with a different definition of &quot;mentally incapacitated&quot; (subd. 7): &quot;Mentally incapacitated&quot; means: (1) that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration; or (2) that a person is under the influence of any substance or substances to a degree that renders them incapable of consenting or incapable of appreciating, understanding, or controlling the person's conduct. (italics indicate the differences of interest). The second clause in the Minnesota definition states the same idea as the Washington definition, but also adds &quot;inability to control&quot; as a form of incapacity. The first clause states a different standard of inability, lowered from &quot;incapable of deciding&quot; to &quot;lacking judgment&quot;, but only when the condition arises without the person's consent. The point here is that prosecution and conviction do not just depend on a generic and universal concept of &quot;consent&quot;, it very much depends on the exact words selected by the legislature in establishing these laws. Minnesota's legislature made one set of choices, Washington's made another. The Washington legislature made another choice when it came to intoxication: per RCW 9a.16.090, No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his or her condition, but whenever the actual existence of any particular mental state is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the fact of his or her intoxication may be taken into consideration in determining such mental state. So an voluntarily drunk person cannot defend themselves saying &quot;I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing&quot;, but intoxication can be relevant to the important question of &quot;knowledge&quot; as an element of culpability. This is a principle of law specifically set by the legislature. Prosecutors don't decide based on a hypothetical &quot;how drunk&quot; scale, instead they compare the facts with what the applicable law says. There is no &quot;knowingly&quot; requirement for prosecution for rape, therefore one cannot argue that because of intoxication the accused &quot;lacked knowledge&quot; of their act owing to intoxication. Being intoxicated according to the .08 driving standard does not (generally) render a person incapable of understanding &quot;intercourse&quot;.
This is called solicitation. A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime. Model Penal Code § 5.02.
No Section 18-1-704.5. (1) says that : The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. (*emphasis added) Subsections (2), (3), and (4) all refer to &quot;any occupant of a dwelling&quot; as the class authorized to use force by this section. An offie is not a dwelling. Section 18-1-901. Definitions says: (g) &quot;Dwelling&quot; means a building which is used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation. Section Section 18-1-704 provides that: (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or (b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.of person's authored by this law to use force Under that provision, the use of deadly force does not seem clearly justified. It is highly questionable that &quot;a lesser degree of force is inadequate&quot;. Any conclusion that the intruder represents an &quot;imminent use of unlawful physical force&quot; seems dubious, but I can't say what a court might find. This law is fairly recent, there may be no published case law for it.
What provisions define the notion of a recordable offence? A Recordable Offence is one that falls within the scope of the National Police Records (Recordable Offences) Regulations 2000 (as amended 2003 to 2016) that: provide for the recording in national police records of convictions, cautions, reprimands, and warnings for the offences specified in the Schedule and for any offence which is punishable with imprisonment in the case of an adult. [note, the schedule is far too long to repoduce here] Or, in other words, one where... ...the police are required to keep a record. Generally speaking, these are crimes for which an individual could be sentenced to a term of imprisonment or they have otherwise been made recordable by statute. The term also includes a number of non-imprisonable offences for example begging and illegal taxi touting. The police are not able to take or retain the biometric information of an individual who is arrested for an offence which is not recordable. [Source: ACRO Criminal Records Office] What are the implications of something being a recordable offence versus not being one and what is the purpose of certain offences being deemed recordable ones? The police can take fingerprints and non-intimate DNA samples (say from plucked head hair or a mouth swab) from someone arrested for a recordable offence without their consent, as per section 61 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for fingerprints: (3) The fingerprints of a person detained at a police station may be taken without the appropriate consent if— (a) he is detained in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence; and (b) he has not had his fingerprints taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police. And section 63 for DNA samples: (2A) A non-intimate sample may be taken from a person without the appropriate consent if two conditions are satisfied. (2B) The first is that the person is in police detention in consequence of his arrest for a recordable offence. (2C) The second is that— (a) he has not had a non-intimate sample of the same type and from the same part of the body taken in the course of the investigation of the offence by the police, or (b) he has had such a sample taken but it proved insufficient. section 65(1) provides these definitions: [...] &quot;fingerprints”, in relation to any person, means a record (in any form and produced by any method) of the skin pattern and other physical characteristics or features of— (a) any of that person’s fingers; or (b) either of his palms; “intimate sample” means— (a) a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine or pubic hair; (b) a dental impression; (c) a swab taken from any part of a person's genitals (including pubic hair) or from a person's body orifice other than the mouth; [...] “non-intimate sample” means— (a) a sample of hair other than pubic hair; (b) a sample taken from a nail or from under a nail; (c) a swab taken from any part of a person's body other than a part from which a swab taken would be an intimate sample; (d) saliva; (e) a skin impression; [...] What happens if you decline consent to give your DNA and fingerprints in the station? If one is at the station under arrest for a recordable offence, then section 117 allows a constable to use reasonable force if the suspect refuses to co-operate: Where any provision of this Act— (a) confers a power on a constable; and *(b) does not provide that the power may only be exercised with the consent of some person, other than a police officer, the officer may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.
Normally a will lodged with the Surrogate's Court is a matter of public record. The Superior Court shall have jurisdiction to compel discovery as to the existence or whereabouts of any paper purporting to be a will of any decedent who died a resident of the county, which has not been offered for probate, and to require the paper to be lodged with the surrogate of the county for probate. N.J. Stat. § 3B:3-29. If a will has been registered in the New Jersey Will registry then a search of the registry in furtherance of the goal of locating a will is allowed for interested persons: Only interested persons and their representatives may conduct a search of the registry. As used in this act, &quot;interested persons&quot; means children, spouses, potential heirs, devisees, fiduciaries, creditors, beneficiaries and any others having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent which may be affected by the proceeding. N.J. Stat. § 3B:3-2.1.
Short Answer A defendant cannot be found guilty on a charge for which the defendant was not arraigned, but this reality is a trivial matter whose sole practical effect is to prevent trials in absentia. There is also a buried second question implicit in the example given but not actually stated in as many words: Can a defendant be convicted of crimes for which an indictment or information is not secured? The answer to that buried second question is no, subject to the exception that a defendant may be convicted of a lesser included charge relative to one for which an information or indictment is secured and upon which the defendant is arraigned. A lesser included charge is a crime for which all the elements must be established to prove the greater charge, but the converse is not true. Thus, if someone is charged only with manslaughter in an indictment to which they plead not guilty, they cannot be convicted of murder. But, if someone is charged with murder in an indictment, to which they plead not guilty, they can be convicted of either murder or manslaughter which is a lesser included charge relative to a murder charge. Long Answer Basically, the criminal justice process goes through the following steps in a felony case (some of which may be omitted in misdemeanor and/or petty offense cases): Someone is charged with a crime in a criminal complaint and arrested. These two events can occur in either order. If the complaint is made first, an arrest warrant will be issued by a magistrate and form the basis for a subsequent arrest and booking. If an arrest is made first, usually because a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe a crime was committed, the criminal complaint will be drawn up once the defendant has been arrested and booked. After both events in step 1 are complete, a first appearance of the defendant in person before a magistrate or judge is held in a matter of one to three days, or even a matter of hours, at which counsel is appointed if the defendant is indigent, the defendant is formally advised of the charges in the criminal complaint, and bail is set (or denied for cause or waived). Confusingly a first appearance is sometimes called an &quot;arraignment on the complaint&quot;, but I am assuming that your question used the term &quot;arraignment&quot; in the predominant sense of an arraignment on an information or indictment. Then, in felony cases (but not misdemeanors), the criminal complaint is reviewed for probable cause following a preliminary hearing and if probable cause is found to exist it is converted to an &quot;information&quot; (if the preliminary hearing is waived by the defendant, the complaint is automatically converted to an &quot;information&quot;); or a grand jury reviews the criminal complaint for probable cause and if probable cause is found to exist it is converted to an &quot;indictment.&quot; The defendant is arraigned in person on the information or indictment. In an arraignment, the defendant is formally informed of the charges in the information or indictment, and the defendant enters a preliminary plea to each of the charges in the information or indictment. This would typically take five minutes to half an hour, depending upon the number of charges brought. Pre-trial proceedings (e.g., &quot;discovery&quot; and motion practice), if any, are conducted by the lawyers for the prosecution and the defense. A trial is held (if the defendant demands it, before a jury). Caveat: There are also more steps prior to the filing of a criminal complaint or arrest (related to searches, seizures and interrogations), and there are also more steps after the trial (related to sentencing, appeals and collateral attacks on convictions and the sealing of records and pardons and commutations), but none of those steps are pertinent to this question. A jury trial would simply never be (definitively and officially) scheduled until an arraignment of the defendant was conducted. So, while it is true that a jury trial would not be conducted on charges in an indictment until the defendant is arraigned (i.e., until the defendant enters a plea to the probable cause screened charges), in the ordinary course, this is a trivial matter. But, because criminal trials can only be conducted after a defendant has been arraigned in person, the only time that a defendant can be tried in abstentia (i.e., without being present at the trial), is when the defendant is arraigned and enters a not guilty plea or the equivalent, and then absconds after that points but before the trial is conducted. (I'm not a complete expert on this, it may be necessary for the defendant to be present when the trial is commenced as well, but I don't need to know to answer this question.) Also, while the requirement of an indictment by a grand jury for felonies exists in federal court under the U.S. Constitution, and in some state courts (mostly in the Eastern U.S.) under state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution permits a state to substitute a preliminary hearing giving rise to an &quot;information&quot; for a grand jury indictment if its state constitution permits. My source for this post is a hard copy of the book Israel, Kamisar and LaFave, Criminal Procedure and the Constitution (1994). But, these basic principles have been in place unchanged for a very long time.
united-states This answer is based upon general principles of criminal procedure in the United States which are quite similar in most states, although not necessarily exactly identical. The answer is likely to be different in other jurisdictions. If inadmissible evidence is offered by the prosecution and admitted at trial, this is a ground upon which the defense can move for a mistrial (which due to double jeopardy amounts to an acquittal), or upon which the defendant can appeal the conviction of the jury, if convicted. Acquittals of a defendant at trial cannot be appealed by the prosecution. But, to appeal, the error in admitting inadmissible evidence must be contemporaneously objected to by the defendant's lawyer (or the defendant if the defendant is not represented by counsel), or the admission of the evidence must be &quot;plain error&quot; (which is very rarely met on evidentiary issues). If the defendant's lawyer doesn't promptly say &quot;I object&quot; that ground for contesting a conviction is usually lost. Even then, the standard of review on appeal is whether the judge abused the judge's discretion in admitting the evidence, not whether the appellate court would have ruled the same way if presented with that evidentiary question. Also, even if there is an error, a conviction on a particular count will not be overruled if the error was &quot;harmless&quot;, which is to say that there is a reasonable possibility that admitting the inadmissible evidence caused the defendant to be convicted of that count. Often, if the evidence is overwhelming, or the inadmissible evidence wasn't that prejudicial, a conviction will be affirmed notwithstanding the admission of inadmissible evidence. Sometimes harmless error is evaluated considering all of the errors at trial as a whole, rather than individually, in addition to all of the other evidence admitted at trial. If an evidence issue can be foreseen and is central to the case (e.g. suppression of evidence of possession of drugs in a drug possession case), the issue of the admissibility of the evidence will often be resolved in a pre-trial hearing and subject to appeal then, prior to trial, rather than being resolved in the trial itself where the prosecution has no right to appeal, and the defendant risks conviction if the ruling goes against the defendant. If the conviction is overturned on appeal, the usual remedy is to remand the case to the same judge to conduct a new trial with a new jury, in a manner consistent with the appellate court's rulings.