Wright v. State
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Citation | Wright v. State, 778 A.2d 443, 169 N.J. 422 (N.J. 2001) |
| Decision Date | 31 July 2001 |
| Parties | Isaac WRIGHT, Adriel McNair, a/k/a Sunshine Wright and Sandra Wright, guardian for Tikealla Wright, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. STATE of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent, and The Office of the Prosecutor of Somerset County; the Office of the Prosecutor of Middlesex County; the Office of the Prosecutor of Passaic County; Middlesex County, NJ; Passaic County, NJ; Franklin Township, NJ; Edison Township, NJ; Passaic City, NJ; Barbara J. Bissell, Executrix of the Estate of Nicholas L. Bissell, Jr.; Peter Demarco, individually and in his official capacity; Richard Thornburg, individually and in his official capacity; Andrew Racz, individually and in his official capacity; Richard A. Myers, individually and in his official capacity; James Dugan, individually and in his official capacity; Scott Fabiano, individually and in his official capacity; Russell Kingsland, individually and in his official capacity; Linda Wishart, individually and in her official capacity; Sam Debella, individually and in his official capacity; Timothy Wenzel, individually and in his official capacity; Nancy Donalon, individually and in her official capacity; Ronald Kushner, individually and in his official capacity; Joseph Kriza, individually and in his official capacity; Ken Euber, individually and in his official capacity; Thomas Maltese, individually and in his official capacity; Chris Ingram, individually and in his official capacity; John Zankowick, individually and in his official capacity; Louis Kirsh, individually and in his official capacity; James Ferguson, individually and in his official capacity; Joseph Lombardo, individually and in his official capacity; John Kenny, individually and in his official capacity; Joseph Fezza, individually and in his official capacity; Otis Daniels, individually and in his official capacity; John Caravanna, individually and in his official capacity; Richard Hurley; Terrence D. Dzura; Michael R. Imbriani, individually and in his official capacity; Ben Tang; Joseph Rhetto; Auto Sport Volvo, Inc.; Acme Motors; John Doe (S) (1-100), individually and in his official capacity; Jane Doe (S) (1-100), individually and in her official capacity and ABC Business Entities (1-10); Defendants, and Somerset County, NJ; Veronica Nolan, individually and in her official capacity; Robert Smith, individually and in his official capacity and Stuart Buckman, individually and in his official capacity; Defendants-Appellants. |
Arthur S. Goldstein, Roseland, argued the cause for appellant Somerset County, NJ (Wolff & Samson, attorneys; Mr. Goldstein and Kenneth N. Laptook, of counsel; Andrew C. Samson and Junie Hahn, on the briefs).
Larry R. Etzweiler, Senior Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Nancy Kaplen, Jeffrey J. Miller and Michael J. Haas, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel).
Sonya M. Longo submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of appellant Robert Smith (Budd Larner Gross Rosenbaum Greenberg & Sade, Atlantic City, attorneys).
Steven L. Kleppe, Hackensack, submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of appellant Veronica Nolan (Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, attorneys).
Richard A. Norris, Somerville, on behalf of appellant Stuart Buckman relied upon the briefs submitted on behalf Somerset County, NJ (Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, attorneys). The opinion of the Court was delivered by STEIN, J.
This is an interlocutory appeal arising from a civil action for false arrest, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and other causes of action against several defendants including thirteen employees of the Somerset County Prosecutor's Office (SCPO). We must determine whether pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 12-3, the State of New Jersey is vicariously liable for the actions of the SCPO's employees and whether the State is required to indemnify and defend them. The trial court held that the State was neither vicariously liable for the SCPO's employees' conduct nor required to defend and indemnify them. The Appellate Division denied appellants' motions for interlocutory review. We reverse. We hold that the State may be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of the SCPO's prosecutors and investigative subordinates during the investigation, arrest and prosecution of Isaac Wright and that the State may be required to indemnify and defend those prosecutors and subordinates in respect of the claims alleged by Wright in this litigation.
In 1989, the SCPO, along with other law enforcement agencies, conducted a lengthy investigation concerning plaintiff Isaac Wright's leadership of a drug distribution network extending throughout the counties of Somerset, Middlesex, and Passaic. That investigation culminated in July 1989, when Wright, as well as several of his co-conspirators, were arrested for numerous violations of the narcotics laws. In August 1989, Wright was indicted and charged with leading a narcotics trafficking network, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-3; possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(1), and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(2); maintaining or operating a narcotics production facility, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-4; and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2. State v. Wright, 143 N.J. 580, 581, 675 A.2d 216 (1996). In April 1991, following a trial, the jury found Wright guilty of all charges alleged against him in the indictment. Ibid. The trial court sentenced Wright to an aggregate term of life imprisonment with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility. Ibid.
In July 1991, Wright and his wife, Adriel McNair, filed a lawsuit alleging false arrest, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, assault and battery, loss of consortium, and other causes of action. The complaint also included allegations that defendants beat Wright at the time of his arrest, suborned perjury, and illegally searched his prison cell. The named defendants included, among others, Somerset County and its prosecutor's office, Middlesex County and its prosecutor's office, Passaic County and its prosecutor's office, Franklin Township and its police department, the City of Passaic and its police department, twenty past and present employees of prosecutors' offices, three municipal police officers, one municipal prosecutor, and the State of New Jersey. Wright alleged that former Somerset County Prosecutor Nicholas L. Bissell, Jr., and several employees of the SCPO including individual appellants Veronica Nolan (Assistant Prosecutor), Stuart Buckman (Detective), and Robert Smith (Deputy Chief of Detectives), among others, acted to effect his false arrest and to invade his privacy.
In 1995, in an unreported opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed all of Wright's convictions except the conviction for leading a narcotics trafficking network. See Wright, supra, 143 N.J. at 582,675 A.2d 216. The Appellate Division determined that the jury instruction regarding Wright's drug-kingpin status was inadequate. Ibid. In 1996, this Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. Ibid. Wright subsequently filed a motion for post-conviction relief seeking to have his remaining convictions reversed, alleging prosecutorial and police misconduct throughout the investigation, arrest, grand jury proceedings, and trial. In December 1997, the Law Division reversed Wright's remaining convictions after an evidentiary hearing on Wright's petition for post-conviction relief. The court found that high-ranking Somerset County law-enforcement officials concealed evidence of the illegal search for and seizure of cocaine used at Wright's trial. The court also found that former Somerset County Prosecutor Bissell knew about, but concealed, the terms of a favorable plea agreement with one of the co-defendants who was a State's witness at Wright's trial. Following the court's decision, the indictment against Wright was dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs' initial civil complaint joined as defendants all of the appellants in this appeal with the exception of Veronica Nolan and the State of New Jersey, who both were joined in the second amended complaint. However, the second amended complaint was not served with a summons on the Attorney General as required by Rule 4:4-4(a)(7) for the institution of a civil lawsuit against the State. The State subsequently was joined as a defendant with the filing of plaintiffs' third amended complaint in August 1998, and the service of a summons on the State in November 1998.
In February 1997, prior to the State's joinder, appellant Somerset County sent the Attorney General a letter requesting representation and indemnification on behalf of the SCPO's employees whom Somerset County was then representing. The Attorney General declined Somerset County's request. In September and October of 1998, appellants Veronica Nolan, Stuart Buckman, and Robert Smith, as well as other defendants in the action including both prosecutorial employees and municipal police officers, filed cross-claims demanding that the State provide them with indemnification and legal representation, but none of those parties served the cross-claims on the State. In March 1999, the trial court ordered appellants and other cross-claiming defendants to serve their cross-claims on the State.
In a motion initially filed in February 1999, and in a supplemental motion filed in April 1999, the State moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' third amended complaint as well as all cross-claims demanding indemnification and representation. The appellants and other defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on their cross-claims against the State for vicarious...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Am. C.L. Union of N.J. v. Cty. Prosecutors Ass'n of N.J.
...or any other agency of local government.’ " Yurick v. State, 184 N.J. 70, 80, 875 A.2d 898 (2005) (quoting Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422, 452, 778 A.2d 443 (2001)). In short, the county prosecutor is not the alter ego of the county itself, and does not constitute a "political subdivision" a......
-
Am. C.L. Union of N.J. v. Cty. Prosecutors Ass'n of N.J.
...or any other agency of local government.’ " Yurick v. State, 184 N.J. 70, 80, 875 A.2d 898 (2005) (quoting Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422, 452, 778 A.2d 443 (2001)). In short, the county prosecutor is not the alter ego of the county itself, and does not constitute a "political subdivision" a......
-
Marshall v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth.
...entity, the Tort Act shields NJ Transit from liability subject to certain exceptions. Maison , 245 A.3d at 552 ; Wright v. State , 169 N.J. 422, 778 A.2d 443, 450 (2001). The Tort Act, however, does not explicitly address or otherwise express New Jersey's consent to be sued outside of New J......
-
Taylor v. New Jersey
...immunity [] is preserved under Section 1983; a state is therefore not a "person" who may be sued under Section 1983."); Wright v. State, 778 A.2d 443, 462 (N.J. 2001) (explaining that when county prosecutors perform their law enforcement function, they act as agents of the State). 2. If Pla......