cdTOCtest

one year incarceration and where the defendant has
waived indictment and trial by jury in writing, and where
the county prosecutor has consented in writing. N.J.S.A.
2B:12-18. These indictable offenses include crimes
enumerated in chapter 17 (arson, criminal mischief, and
other property destruction), 18 (burglary and other
criminal intrusion), 20 (theft and related offenses) and
21 (forgery and fraudulent practices) of the Code,
provided that the injury or loss to the victim is $500.00
or less. N.J.S.A. 2A:8-22a.

Municipal court lacked jurisdiction over bigamy
offense since conduct constituting the offense of bigamy,
i.e. defendant’s second marriage, took place in Pakistan,
not New Jersey. State v. Ishaque, 312 N.J. Super. 207
(Law Div. 1997).

A municipal court can exercise jurisdiction over
offenses which occur on a bridge owned and operated by
the county bridge commission. State v. Garcia, 297 N.J.
Super. 108 (Mun. Ct. 1996).

A municipal court is not limited in the amount of
restitution it can order from a dependant who is guilty of
meter tampering. State v. Kennedy, 152 N.J. 413, 424,
(1998); cf. State v. Paone, 290 N.J. Super. 494, 497 (App.
Div. 1996)(upholding municipal court restitution
award of $102,545.49 subject to hearing regarding
defendant’s ability to pay).

A municipal court has jurisdiction to adjudicate
charges of disorderly persons violations and municipal
violations which take place in areas “bounding the
municipality,” and beaches and “bathing facilities”
“bordering on the municipality.” State v. Oliver, 320 N.J.
Super. 405, 418 (App. Div. 1999).

If a complaint has been filed in a municipal court
without territorial jurisdiction over the offense, that
court nevertheless has the power to transfer the matter to
an appropriate municipal court. State v. Ryfa, 315 N.J.
Super. 376 (Law Div. 1998).

Municipal courts have jurisdiction to entertain
motions to suppress evidence obtained by warrantless
searches “in matter subject to trial within the municipal
court.” R. 7:5-2; State v. Giordano, 281 N.J. Super. 150
(App. Div. 1995); but see State v. Maure, 240 N.J. Super.
269 (App. Div. 1990), aff’d o.b. 123 N.J. 457 (1991)
(Appellate Division entertained a direct appeal from an
interlocutory order of the municipal court respecting the
admissibility of breathalyzer evidence); see generally State
v. Downie, 117 N.J. 450 (1990); State v. Mazurek, 237

N.J. Super. 231 (App. Div. 1989), certif. denied, 121 N.J.

623 (1990); State v. Bodtmann, 239 N.J. Super. 33 (App.

Div. 1990). Where suppression motions are not based on

constitutional grounds, however, denials of the motions

are not subject to further review following a guilty plea as

provided by this rule. State v. Giordano, 281 N.J. Super.

150, 154 (App. Div. 1995).

III. SUPERIOR COURT

A. Law Division

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, has

general jurisdiction of all indictable crimes. N.J.S.A.

2A:3-4; R. 3:1-5. This includes the power to adjudicate

lesser-included non-indictable offenses. State v. Saulnier,

63 N.J. 199 (1973); see also R. 3:1-5. In addition, the

Law Division hears proceedings involving charges

constituting disorderly persons offenses or petty

disorderly person offenses brought pursuant to N.J.S.A.

2C:34-2b (sale of obscene material to person 18 years of

age or older), and N.J.S.A. 2C:37-8 (all gambling

offenses). R. 3:1-6. All filed papers in indictable offenses

are entitled in the Superior Court. R. 3:7-1.

In State v. Hall, 93 N.J. 552 (1983), cert. denied sub.

nom. Hall v. New Jersey, 104 S.Ct. 526 (1983), the Court

held that the Superior Court has jurisdiction to authorize

investigative detentions. 93 N.J. at 559. The

jurisdiction of the court was founded on the judiciary’s

constitutional powers over searches and seizures.

N.J.Const.1947, Art. I, ¶ 7 and U.S. Const., Amend IV;

see also State v. Palle, 265 N.J. Super. 482, 486 (App. Div.

1993). In addition, a defendant convicted in a municipal

court has a right to appeal to the Law Division. N.J.

Const. 1947 , art. VI, § VI; N.J.S.A. 2A:3-6; see also R.

3:23-1 et seq.; R. 7:8-1; but see State v. Hanemann, 180

N.J. Super. 544 (App. Div. 1981), certif. denied, 88 N.J.

506 (1981)(an appeal to the Superior Court deprives the

municipal court of its power to grant a new trial).

Where jurisdiction of the trial court is invalid but

jurisdiction is assumed because of a misrepresentation by

defendant, the intervening contempt conviction for

violation of a bail order is valid and must be obeyed until

jurisdiction of the underlying criminal proceeding is

determined to be invalid. State v. Roberts, 212 N.J. Super.

476, 485 (App. Div. 1986). The Appellate Division in

Roberts held that the Law Division had jurisdiction to

find defendant in contempt for violation, even if the bail

order had been invalid because it was entered by the

Superior Court while defendant was still a juvenile.