1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.2d
  4. 897 A.2d
  5. 897 A.2d 388 (2006)
 

STATE v. FRANCIS

897 A.2d 388 (2006)

385 N.J. Super. 350

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alturik FRANCIS, Defendant-Respondent.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided May 10, 2006.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Theodore J. Romankow, Union County Prosecutor, attorney for appellant (Steven J. Kaflowitz, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Glazer & Luciano, Livingston, and Carl J. Herman, attorneys for respondent (Mr. Herman and David B. Glazer, of counsel; Mr. Herman, on the brief).

Before Judges LINTNER, HOLSTON, JR. and GILROY.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

HOLSTON, JR., J.A.D.

This appeal requires us to define the "dominant purpose" test as it applies to pre-indictment proceedings before a grand jury,1 whether the State conducted itself properly under the test, and what sanctions, if any, should be imposed for its violation. Generally it is appropriate for the State to question witnesses before a grand jury on subjects relevant to the grand...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases