B. Procedural Aspects
The procedural aspects of appeals from the Law
Division are set forth in Part II of the Rules Governing the
Courts of New Jersey. Appeals from courts of limited
jurisdiction, including quasi-criminal matters from
municipal courts, are governed by R. 3:23 and 24, and 7-
13, except in extraordinary cases and in the interest of
justice, when R. 2:2-3(b) may apply. See State v.
Mazurek, 237 N.J. Super. 231, 233-34 (App. Div.
1989), certif. denied, 121 N.J. 623 (1990). The
Appellate Division has also exercised original jurisdiction
to entertain an interlocutory appeal of a municipal court
ruling pursuant to a rule relaxation under R. 1:1-2 where
an issue of widespread public importance requiring
expeditious disposition is involved and the parties
consented. See State v. Maure, 240 N.J. Super. 269 (App.
Div. 1990), aff’d o.b. 123 N.J. 457 (1991).
C. Record on Appeal
The content of the record is governed by R. 2:5-4.
Essentially, the record consists of all papers on file in the
court below, all docket entries, and the transcripts of the
proceedings. R. 2:6-1(a) lists the record material that
must be included in the appendix. The court will not
consider evidentiary material which is not in the record
below. State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 201-02 (1997);
State v. Giordano, 283 N.J. Super. 323, 330 (App. Div.
1995); State v. Sidoti, 120 N.J. Super. 208, 211 (App.
Div. 1972).
In State v. Casimono, 280 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div.
1997), the court reversed denial of PCR and remanded
for reconstruction of the record of the hearing with
participation of counsel and defendant, criticizing the
trial court for reconstructing the record on its own
without notice to any party. In State v. Izaguirre, 272 N.J.
Super. 51 (App. Div. 1994), the court upheld
defendant’s conviction for murder, rejecting the
contention that loss of the court reporter’s notes of the
trial deprived him of due process of law because it limited
the issues he could raise on appeal. The judge learned of
the loss two weeks after the trial and promptly set forth
procedures for reconstruction of the entire record. In the
absence of any argument that the reconstruction or any
portion of it was not a reasonably accurate and complete
portrayal of what occurred at trial, the Appellate Division
concluded that due process was satisfied.
In Johnson v. N.J. Dept. of Corrections, 298 N.J. Super.
79 (App. Div. 1997), the court reversed and remanded
to the DOC in part because the record was almost totally
illegible and because the DOC failed to follow its own
procedures and document why a witness that the
defendant claimed to have relevant information was not
called at his disciplinary hearing.D. Briefs on AppealWhere no contemporaneous objection was made
below and the issue is raised for the first time on appeal,
R. 2:6-2(a)(1) requires that the party raising the issue flag
that it was not raised below in the point heading. This
requirement is mandatory and failure to comply is
improper. State v. Kyles, 132 N.J. Super. 397, 400 (App.
Div. 1975). Kyles also holds that “[w]hile an attorney
should zealously advance the cause of his client, the
piecemeal selection so as to create a putative issue is to be
condemned. It is improper for an attorney to present an
issue unless it can be done in good faith. Simply because
an indigent defendant has the right to be represented by
counsel and the right to an appeal without cost does not
obligate his counsel to urge specious arguments so as to
satisfy that right. No party has the right to have advanced
on his behalf contentions that are palpably and clearly
unmeritorious. It is a disservice to all litigants when the
court’s time is consumed by such contentions.” Id. at
400-401.If a party raising an issue fails to support it from the
record, it is not the duty of the appellate court to search
the record for error. State v. Marchese, 14 N.J. 16, 22
(1953); State v. Cooper, 10 N.J. 532, 563 (1952), citing
Shade v. Colgate, 4 N.J. Super. 356, 362 (App. Div.
1949); State v. Ingenito, 169 N.J. Super. 524, 529 (App.
Div. 1979), rev’d o.g. 87 N.J. 204 (1981); State v. Hild,
148 N.J. Super. 294, 296 (App. Div. 1977). In State v.
Melton, 136 N.J. Super. 378 (App. Div. 1975), the
reviewing court held that if a party objects to an adverse
ruling, he must set forth the precise grounds for his
objection if he is to avoid the necessity for reliance on
plain error. While a judge is expected to deal with issues
which come (or might be expected to come) to his
attention, the reviewing courts will not impose on the
trial judge “the duty to sort through the advocacy of
inquiry of witnesses to speculate as to the precise defenses
being framed, especially since a simple statement by
counsel will suffice. We have long since repudiated
‘subtle disguise or concealment of unsuspected * * *
defenses.’” (citing Edwards v. Wyckoff Electrical Supply
Co., 42 N.J. Super. 236, 240 (App. Div. 1956).It is also inappropriate to fail to include any citations
in support of the arguments proffered. State v. Perlstein,