two-court rule in New Jersey

2026"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." State v. Reece, 222 N.J. 154, 166 (2015) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)).

2025"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." State v. Reece, 222 N.J. 154, 166 (2015) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999)).

2026"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Ibid.

2026"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Ibid.

2025"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Ibid. (citing Midler v. Heinowitz, 10 N.J. 123, 128-29 (1952)).

2025"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999) (citing Midler v. Heinowitz, 10 N.J. 123, 128-29 (1952)).

2025"However, no such deference is owed to the Law Division or the municipal court with respect to legal determinations or conclusions reached on the basis of the facts." Stas, 212 N.J. at 49 .

2025"However, no such deference is owed to the Law Division or the municipal court with respect to legal determinations or conclusions reached on the basis of the facts." Stas, 212 N.J. at 49 .

2019"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Ibid. (citing Midler v. Heinowitz, 10 N.J. 123, 128-29 (1952)).

1999"Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error." Id. at 157 N.J. at 474 , 724 A. 2d 234 .

2022Therefore, our review of the factual and credibility findings of the municipal court and the Law Division "'is exceedingly narrow.'" State v. Reece, 222 N.J. 154, 167 (2015) 7 A-2027-18 (quoting Locurto, 157 N.J. at 470 ); see also Meshinsky v. Nicholas Yacht Sales, Inc., 110 N.J. 464, 475 (1988) (quoting Rova Farms Resort v. Inv'rs Ins.

2020Therefore, our review of the factual and credibility findings of the municipal court and the Law Division "is exceedingly narrow." State v. Reece, 222 N.J. 154, 167 (2015) (quoting Locurto, 157 N.J. at 470 ); see also Meshinsky v. Nicholas Yacht Sales, Inc., 110 N.J. 464, 475 (1988) (observing that appellate courts defer to the Law Division's credibility findings that were not "wholly unsupportable as to result in a denial of justice" (quoting Rova Farms Resort v. Inv'rs Ins.

2012Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error.” Locurto, supra, 157 N.J. at 474 , 724 A.2d 234 ; see also State v. Oliver, 320 N.J.Super. 405, 421 , 727 A.2d 491 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 161 N.J. 332 , 736 A.2d 525 (1999).

2012Under the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error.” Locurto, supra, 157 N.J. at 474 , 724 A.2d 234 ; see also State v. Oliver, 320 N.J.Super. 405, 421 , 727 A.2d 491 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 161 N.J. 332 , 736 A.2d 525 (1999).

2026See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999) (finding "[u]nder the two-court rule, appellate courts ordinarily should not undertake to alter concurrent findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error"); see also State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138, 148 (2017) (same).

2025Where a defendant is convicted in the Law Division and seeks reversal in the Appellate Division, "the State no longer has the burden of proof[,] [and] [a]ppellate review instead focuses on whether there is A-0598-23 11 'sufficient credible evidence . . . in the record' to support the trial court's findings." Robertson, 228 N.J. at 148 (quoting Johnson, 42 N.J. at 162 ).

2026Defendant acknowledges in his merits brief that the officers' initial interaction with him after the MDT indicated his license was suspended constituted a "legitimate stop." See State v. Williams, 254 N.J. 8 , 16 (2023) (finding "an MDT query revealing [license-suspension] information provides constitutionally valid reasonable suspicion authorizing the officer to stop the vehicle"); State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44, 58 (1998) (holding information from an MDT about a license suspension "gave rise to the reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was driven in violation of the motor vehicle laws and was i

2024N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle while "under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . . ." Someone is "under the influence" of alcohol when they experience "a substantial deterioration or diminution of the mental faculties or physical capabilities . . . due to intoxicating liquor . . . ." State v. Tamburro, 68 N.J. 414, 421 (1975).

2021"Appellate courts should defer to trial court's credibility findings that are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record." State v. Cerefice, 335 N.J.

2021Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998) (citing Rova Farms Resort v. Investors Ins.

2020Rather, this court’s sole function is to "'determine whether the [Law Division’s de novo] findings . . . could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record,' considering the proofs as a whole." State v. Ebert, 377 N.J.

2019A-0828-18T1 6 In State v. S.S., our Supreme Court held that an appellate court reviews a trial court's findings that are "based solely on video or documentary evidence" under a clearly mistaken or clearly erroneous standard of review. 229 N.J. 360, 379-81 (2017).