State v. Blann
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Jaworski v. Ernst & Young U.S. LLP (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015)
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. VITALIY SHTABNOY (19-05-0287, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021)
- Panat Taranat v. Rokt US Corp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026)
- Paul Jaworski, Alexander Haggis and Robert Holewinski Vs. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015)
- State of New Jersey v. Ryan E. Coles (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
- People v. Doyle (Cal. 2018)
- People v. Sivongxxay (Cal. 2017)
- People v. Doyle (Cal. Ct. App. 2016)
- State of New Jersey v. Hasan Bruce (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2026)
- State of New Jersey v. Tacuma E. Ashman (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025)
- State of New Jersey v. Elina Gutti (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025)
- State of New Jersey v. E.K. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
- CRESPO v. SKILLSOFT (US) LLC (District Court, D. New Jersey 2024)
- State of New Jersey v. Michael Ramirez (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EMMANUEL JOHN (17-10-0756, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021)
- Hunter Hedrick v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2020)
- Barbara Orientale v. Darrin L. Jennings (079953) (Middlesex County and Statewide) (N.J. 2019)
- People v. Doyle (Cal. Ct. App. 2018)
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY EUGENE STEVENSON STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LEROY TAYLOR (12-05-0895, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018)
- Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. Ward & Olivo, L.L.P., and John Olivo, Esq., and John Ward, Esq. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2014)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Lisa’s opinion. State v. Blann, 429 N.J.Super. 220, 235, 57 A.3d 1102 (App.Div. 2013) (Lisa, J.A.D., retired and temporarily assigned on recall, dissenting).
Judge Lisa reviewed the current case law and practice relating to requests by defendants to waive the right to a jury trial. Id. at 240-44, 57 A.3d 1102. He thoughtfully observed that judges should engage in a more probing “colloquy with defendants to further be assured that, before granting a waiver, a defendant possesses a deeper understanding of the choice he or she has.” Id. at 246, 57 A.3d 1102. To that end, Judge Lisa outlined four points that should be included in a signed written waiver form and probed during the court’s colloquy, namely, that defendant
has ... been advised that (1) a jury is composed of 12 members of the community, (2) a defendant may participate in the selection of jurors, (3) all 12 jurors must unanimously vote to convict in order for a conviction to be obtained, and (4) if a defendant waives a jury trial, a judge alone will decide his/her guilt or innocence.
[Id. at 250, 57 A.3d 1102.]
We rely on our supervisory powers under Article VI, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the State Constitution to require (1) that an official jury waiver form containing the above four items be prepared for use in connection with Rule 1:8—1(a), and (2) that trial judges engage in a colloquy with defendants that includes those four items, at a minimum, to assess the voluntariness of a waiver request. See State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 254-55, 270-71, 27 A.3d 872 (2011) (relying on supervisory powers to require full record of identification procedures); State v. Delgado, 188 N.J. 48, 63, 902 A.2d 888 (2006) (same). We ask the Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts to help implement the above approach within thirty days.
We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstate defendant’s conviction. Defendant can pursue his jury waiver argument in a proceeding for post-conviction relief.
Opposed—None.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.