State v. K.P.S. and State v. Carmini Laloo
112 A.3d 579
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Three co-defendants (K.P.S., Peter Lisa, Carmini Laloo) were charged after police searches of Lisa’s home uncovered alleged stolen property and electronic media; evidence implicated sexual abuse of K.P.S.’s minor son.
- Defendants jointly moved to suppress evidence from the searches; the trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
- All three entered guilty pleas pursuant to plea agreements; K.P.S. received a 15-year NERA sentence plus lifetime supervision and Megan’s Law registration.
- Lisa’s appeal was decided first by an Appellate Division panel, which affirmed denial of suppression.
- A later Appellate Division panel hearing K.P.S. and Laloo’s appeals declined to revisit the suppression issue, invoking the law-of-the-case doctrine because Lisa’s panel had already resolved the same issues.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification solely to decide whether law of the case precluded K.P.S.’s panel from independently reviewing his suppression arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law-of-the-case barred K.P.S.’s panel from reconsidering suppression issues decided in co-defendant Lisa’s earlier appeal | The State: Lisa’s panel decision should govern; law of the case applies when co-defendant appeals are decided sequentially on the same record | K.P.S.: Law of the case is discretionary and cannot bind a separate appellant who was not a party to the earlier appeal | Reversed — law of the case did not bar K.P.S.’s panel; separate appellants are not bound when they had no role in the earlier appeal |
| Whether co-defendants’ separate appeals are the “same case” for law-of-the-case purposes | State: Appeals arising from the same trial record should be controlled by prior panel rulings | K.P.S.: Separate docketed appeals before different panels are independent; collateral-estoppel principles (privity) show a party must have been in prior proceeding to be bound | Held: They are not the same case for law-of-the-case; collateral-estoppel/privity principles apply and K.P.S. was not a party to Lisa’s appeal |
| Whether applying law of the case here would violate due process | State: binding prior panel promotes finality and uniformity | K.P.S.: Denying a separate appellant the opportunity to be heard violates the New Jersey Constitution’s guarantee of appellate review and due process | Held: Applying law of the case to deny K.P.S. review would violate his state constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to be heard; he must get a new appellate review |
| Proper remedy when a secondary panel wrongly invokes law of the case | State: uphold prior result for efficiency and consistency | K.P.S.: remand for independent review on merits | Held: Reverse Appellate Division judgment and remand for a new appellate review where K.P.S.’s suppression arguments are considered on the merits; panels may consider but are not bound by prior panel reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 (discussing law-of-the-case as discretionary rule) (N.J. 2011)
- State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187 (explaining law-of-the-case and its usual application) (N.J. 1985)
- Zirger v. General Accident Ins. Co., 144 N.J. 327 (defining privity and limits on collateral estoppel) (N.J. 1996)
- State v. Bianco, 103 N.J. 383 (recognizing defendant’s right to meaningful appellate review under state due process) (N.J. 1986)
- Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (describing law-of-the-case principle) (U.S. 1983)
- United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501 (discussing application of law-of-the-case among co-defendant appeals) (9th Cir. 1991)
- In re Estate of Dawson, 136 N.J. 1 (collateral estoppel and requirement of party participation or privity) (N.J. 1994)