Court Opinion

ID: 9698684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:57:37.80954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:42.742605
License: Public Domain

PASHMAN, J.,
dissenting.
I have previously expressed at length my views on the issue of whether particular judicial decisions affecting the rights of criminal defendants should receive limited retroactivity. State v. Carpentieri, 82 N.J. 546, 556 (1980) (Pashman, J., dissenting); State v. Howery, 80 N.J. 563, 575 (Pashman, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 994, 100 S.Ct. 527, 62 L.Ed.2d 424 (1979). Because the reasons I found in Carpentieri and Howery for limited retroactive application of the rules at issue there apply as well to the rule announced by this Court in State v. Cerbo, 78 N.J. 595 (1979), I respectfully dissent.
Very briefly, I believe that application of the Cerbo rule, which in the cases at bar results in the suppression of the Greenhause tapes in State v. Burstein and all the tapes in State v. Barrise, serves the purpose of preserving “the imperative of judicial integrity.” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1693, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). Furthermore, consistent with my reasoning in Carpentieri and Howery, cases pending direct review in our courts should be decided on the basis of our ruling in Cerbo.
There is little wisdom and no fairness in “[s]imply fishing one case from the stream of appellate review, using it as a vehicle for pronouncing new ... *418standards, and then permitting a stream of similar cases subsequently to flow by unaffected by that new rule .... ” [Mackey v. United States, 401 U.S. 667, 679, 91 S.Ct. 1160, 1173, 28 L.Ed.2d 404 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting)] [State v. Carpentieri, supra, 82 N.J. at 570 (Pashman, J., dissenting)]
Contrary to the assertion of the majority, limited retroactivity would not have such “a drastic effect on the administration of justice,” ante at 410, that our courts should compromise “the imperative of judicial integrity.”
Aside from the question of retroactivity, I agree with the majority on the other issues decided in these cases. I would modify and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division in State v. Burstein, 172 N.J.Super. 388 (1980), and I would reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division in State v. Barrise, 173 N.J.Super. 549 (1980).
For affirmance — WILENTZ and Justices SULLIVAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK — 6.
For modification and affirmance in part and reversed in part —Justice PASHMAN — 1.