State v. Carmichael, A-2271-18

From the It's Not What You Say department:

This is a rather pedestrian motor vehicle traffic stop, leading to the smell of marijuana, leading to a vehicle search, leading to the cops finding both marijuana and drugs besides marijuana, and finally leading to the State convicting the driver. But wait! The officer needed to have a basis for the traffic stop, and the defendant demands his hearing.

Take 1: The State doesn't provide a basis for the traffic stop.

Not a problem. The court reopens the hearing for the State, leading us to:

Take 2: The State doesn't provide a basis for the traffic stop.

Not a problem! The trial judge, seeing this, questions the officer personally until the trial judge feels that there's a basis for the traffic stop, and writes a 19 page opinion about it.

This was a bridge too far for the Appellate Division, because the tenor of the trial judge's questions:

We acknowledge that a judge, pursuant to N.J.R.E. 614(b), may examine witnesses to clarify testimony, aid the court's understanding, elicit material facts, and assure the trial is conducted efficiently. State v. Medina, 349 N.J. Super. 108, 131 (App. Div. 2002). Here, however, the motion judge engaged in a lengthy colloquy with Principato wherein he interposed suggestive and leading questions. A judge must avoid crossing "that fine line that separates advocacy from impartiality. When that occurs there may be substantial prejudice to the rights of one of the litigants." Ridgewood v. SreelInv. Corp., 28 N.J. 121, 132 (1958). 

So if the judge feels like reopening the hearing when the State has rested rather than ruling against it? That's just dandy. Carry on, good sir or madame, impartiality in action. However, in that reopened hearing the trial judge better be careful how he or she words any questions he or she asks.