STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ERIC MENZZOPANEÂ (2014-10, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5732-14T3

Background

Defendant Eric Menzzopane entered a conditional guilty plea in Lawrence Township Municipal Court to DWI, reserving the right to appeal the denial of two pretrial motions (recusal/change of venue).
At a prior suppression hearing, Officer DiMeglio testified about a short stop after observing alleged speeding, driving on the fog line, and running a red light; cross-examination became contentious and the municipal judge was asked to recuse and granted a conflict judge.
Defense sought discovery (25 prior narratives); a deputy court administrator called defense counsel’s office asking whether discovery had been provided and indicated the call was made at the court’s request. Defense moved to disqualify the municipal court and later sought recusal of the conflict judge for alleged ex parte communications.
The conflict judge had inquired (on the record) whether discovery was provided and explained he asked staff to confirm scheduling-related matters; he denied recusal and the change-of-venue motion.
Defendant entered the conditional plea waiving further pursuit of the suppression motion but reserving appeal on recusal/venue; in the Law Division de novo the court denied the appeal and refused to address the suppression motion.
Appellate Division affirmed, holding the communications were ministerial scheduling contacts not barred by Rule 1:2-1, defendant showed no prejudice/bias, and the suppression claim was waived by the conditional plea.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Menzzopane's Argument	Held
Whether the conflict judge’s communications with the prosecutor/clerical staff were impermissible ex parte contacts requiring recusal	Contacts were ministerial scheduling inquiries permitted under Rule 1:2-1 (no substantive ex parte communication)	The communications were ex parte and unknown in substance, creating at least the appearance of bias requiring recusal	Held: Communications were ministerial scheduling contacts; no recusal required (no showing of prejudice)
Whether the conflict judge’s prior question to the prosecutor at another court constituted substantive ex parte communication	Any inquiry was a single, scheduling question and not consequential	The May 19 inquiry in Trenton was an ex parte substantive contact warranting disqualification	Held: The inquiry related to scheduling; not barred or outcome-altering; defendant failed to show bias
Whether the conflict judge should have used a three-judge panel (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-50) to decide disqualification	Single-judge discretion appropriate; statute not triggered by ministerial contacts	A three-person procedure was required to avoid potential bias	Held: No error — three-person procedure not required under these facts (no demonstrable partiality)
Whether the Law Division could decide the suppressed-motion merits under State v. McLendon after a conditional plea	The plea limited preserved issues to recusal/venue; suppression was waived by defendant’s conditional plea and benefit received	McLendon permits sua sponte consideration of suppression in some post-conviction remands and the Law Division should reach suppression here	Held: McLendon is distinguishable (remand after conviction); defendant knowingly abandoned suppression; Law Division properly declined to address suppression merits

Key Cases Cited

State v. Morgan, 217 N.J. 1 (2013) (ex parte communications rule permits ministerial scheduling contacts)
State v. McLendon, 331 N.J. Super. 104 (App. Div. 2000) (remand after conviction allowed consideration of constitutional issue belatedly raised)