State v. Huff, 689 A.2d 723

Dissenting Opinion

HANDLER, J., and O’HERN, J.,

dissenting.

We would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Kleiner’s dissenting opinion below, reported at 292 N.J.Super. 185, 194, 678 A.2d 731 (1996).

*79For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ, and Justices POLLOCK, GARIBALDI, STEIN and COLEMAN — 5.

For reversal — Justices HANDLER and O’HERN — 2.

---

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter was presented to the Court on defendant’s appeal as of right pursuant to Rule 2:2-l(a)(2). The Court denied defendant’s petition for certification of the issues not covered by the dissenting opinion below. 146 N.J. 570, 683 A.2d 1165 (1996).

The portion of the Appellate Division’s judgment that is before the Court on defendant’s appeal as of right is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Landau’s opinion, reported at 292 N.J.Super. 185, 678 A.2d 731 (1996).

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Huff

Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date Published: Mar 12, 1997

Citations: 689 A.2d 723; 148 N.J. 78; 1997 N.J. LEXIS 80

Court Abbreviation: N.J.