gain information from the mother of a homicide victim.
The court reasoned that the First Amendment has never
been construed to provide immunity from either tortious
or criminal conduct committed in the course of news-
gathering.
*Resisting Arrest (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2) is a disorderly
persons offense if no physical force is used or intended.
*Possession of 50 Grams or Less of Marijuana -
(N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(4)).
*Failure to Voluntarily Deliver Controlled Danger-
ous Substance to Law Enforcement (N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
10(c)).
*Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (N.J.S.A. 2C:36-
2).
*Possession of Hypodermic Needle (N.J.S.A. 2C:36-
6).
*Employer Requiring Lie Detector Test (N.J.S.A.
2C:40A-1). See State v. Community Distribution, Inc.,
64 N.J. 479 (1974); State v. Berkey, Photo, Inc., 150 N.J.
Super. 56 (App. Div. 1977).
*Cruelty; Disorderly Persons Offense (N.J.S.A.
4:22-17).
In State v. Spano, 328 N.J.Super. 287 (App. Div.
2000), the Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s
convictions for needlessly killing animals and injuring
property while hunting. The defendant had shot two
dogs while deer hunting, allegedly in self-defense. It
reasoned that a dog’s mere barking does not justify its
shooting, and defendant’s conduct in supposed response
to the “threat” the dogs posed was excessive. Too, no
expert testimony was needed from a defense witness who
offered to define what the word “worrying” meant in a
relevant statute. Lastly, the Court upheld the suspension
of defendant’s two separate hunting license given the
facts involved.
*Unlawful Discharge Of, or Discrimination Against,
Employee Claiming Compensation Benefits; Penalty
(N.J.S.A. 34:15-39.1). See Lally v. Copygraphics, 85 N.J.
688 (1981); Kenny v. Meadowview Nursing and
Convalescent Ctr. 308 N.J. Super. 565, 571 (App. Div.
1998).
In State v. Ochoa, 314 N.J. Super. 168 (App. Div.
1998), the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of
petitioner’s petition for expungement of her three
disorderly and petty disorderly persons convictions.
Petitioner had four other convictions in other
jurisdictions which precluded consideration of her
expungement petition pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:52-3.
While she had but three prior New Jersey disorderly and
petty disorderly persons convictions, the Appellate
Division found that it would be manifestly inconsistent
under this statute to expunge the convictions occurring
in this state of a habitual petty offender who also had
committed numerous petty offenses in other jurisdic-
tions. N.J.S.A. 2C:52-3 does not specify that an
individual must commit his or her three prior convictions
in New Jersey. The court concluded that petitioner was
ineligible to seek expungement. In so ruling, the
Appellate Division overruled the contrary decision in
State v. H.J.B., 240 N.J. Super. 216 (Law Div. 1990), that
foreign disorderly persons convictions could not be
considered in determining such eligibility.