State ex rel. E.S.
| Decision Date | 22 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-41/42 September Term 2021,086554 |
| Citation | 252 N.J. 331,285 A.3d 294 |
| Parties | STATE IN the INTEREST OF E.S., a juvenile. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Michael Denny, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant/cross-respondent E.S. (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Michael Denny, of counsel and on the briefs).
Milton S. Leibowitz, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent/cross-appellant State of New Jersey (William A. Daniel, Union County Prosecutor, attorney; Milton S. Leibowitz, of counsel and on the briefs).
Adam D. Klein, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Adam D. Klein, of counsel and on the brief).
Kristina Kersey argued the cause for amici curiae Rutgers Criminal and Youth Justice Clinic, the Gault Center, and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Rutgers Criminal and Youth Justice Clinic, the Gault Center, and Jardim, Meisner & Susser, attorneys; Kristina Kersey, Laura Cohen, and Michael V. Gilberti, on the brief).
Anthony V. Pierro, Chief Juvenile Attorney, Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, argued the cause for amicus curiae New Jersey Juvenile Prosecutors Leadership Network (New Jersey Juvenile Prosecutors Leadership Network, attorneys; Anthony V. Pierro, of counsel and on the brief, Lisa Ledoux, Assistant Hudson County Prosecutor, Anthony Higgins, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Essex County Prosecutor, Jennifer Moran, Assistant Mercer County Prosecutor, Jason Harding, Assistant Passaic County Prosecutor, and Kelly Shelton, Assistant Warren County Prosecutor, on the brief).
In March 2021, defendant E.S. was arrested and charged as a juvenile with weapons and other offenses that would constitute indictable offenses if committed by an adult. Defense counsel moved to suppress the gun seized from defendant at the time of his arrest. Two weeks later, the State moved to waive family court jurisdiction and transfer the case to the Law Division, Criminal Part, to prosecute E.S. as an adult. The family court initially decided to hear the suppression motion before the waiver motion but, following the State's motion for reconsideration, resolved to hear the waiver motion first. The Appellate Division affirmed but expressed a "general preference" for the Family Part to hear suppression motions before waiver motions.
In this appeal, we are called upon to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by choosing to hear the State's waiver motion before E.S.’s suppression motion. We also consider whether the Family Part should "apply a general preference" to hear suppression motions before deciding waiver motions.
We now modify and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. We agree with the Appellate Division that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to hear defendant's waiver motion before considering his suppression motion, and we remand to the family court for further proceedings.
We decline, however, to adopt a preference that the Family Part hear suppression motions before waiver motions. Rather, we hold that it is within the discretion of the Family Part to determine its schedule of proceedings and manage its calendar. In exercising their discretion as to the order in which to hear waiver and suppression motions, Family Part judges should take several factors into consideration, including (1) whether the evidence that the defendant is seeking to suppress, if excluded, would be dispositive of probable cause or have a substantial effect on the case in chief; (2) whether there are co-defendants with suppression motions pending in the Family or Criminal Parts; and (3) judicial efficiency and management of the court's calendar.
The family court record reveals that plainclothes officers of the Elizabeth Police Department's Narcotics Unit were conducting routine surveillance from an unmarked black Jeep when they observed E.S. and his co-defendant, Alleem Johnson, walking down the street. When E.S. and Johnson suddenly stopped, Detective Alex Gonzalez observed E.S. reach into his right pants pocket while shielding the outside of his pocket with his left hand. Johnson simultaneously reached toward his own waistband. Gonzalez reported that E.S. and Johnson both "maintained a hard stare at [the police] vehicles" and that, after the officers "pass[ed] both suspects, both males panned their heads from left to right, maintaining visual of [the police] vehicle while diagonally crossing the street."
The officers watched E.S. and Johnson as they crossed the street, then circled the block and returned to where they last saw E.S. and Johnson. Gonzalez opened his door and yelled According to Gonzalez, E.S. and Johnson defied the command, brandishing handguns and briefly pointing them at the jeep before running away. The police pursued them, and E.S. was arrested further down the street while trying to jump a fence. Police searched E.S. and found a loaded semiautomatic handgun. Johnson was also arrested.
E.S. was charged as a juvenile with offenses that, if committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, third-degree aggravated assault by pointing or displaying a firearm at a law enforcement officers, second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, fourth-degree obstructing the administration of law or other governmental function, and fourth-degree resisting arrest. Johnson, E.S.’s adult co-defendant, was charged in the Law Division, Criminal Part.1
Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress physical evidence -- the gun seized from defendant. Two weeks later, the State filed a motion pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1 to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and to transfer the case to the Law Division, Criminal Part, to prosecute E.S. as an adult.
The family court judge chose to hear the suppression motion before the waiver motion, after which the State filed a motion for reconsideration asking the trial court to revisit its decision and resolve the waiver motion first. The judge rejected the arguments made by both parties at the hearing on the motion for reconsideration but ruled that the waiver motion should be heard first. The judge explained that he had been informed by other judges that juvenile judges typically hear waiver motions first due to interests of judicial efficiency.
The family court judge granted a stay of that order pending a motion for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division, which was granted. Citing the vast difference between the adult and juvenile justice systems and the significant impact of waiver on juvenile defendants, E.S. asserted that "the trial court's decision to hear the juvenile waiver motion before the motion to suppress was an abuse of discretion and a violation of the juvenile's right to due process" because the consideration of inadmissible evidence during the waiver hearing would be improper, give the State an unfair advantage, and undermine the expanded rights granted to juveniles by this Court in State v. J.M., 182 N.J. 402, 411, 866 A.2d 178 (2005).
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that, although "the Family Part has the discretion to determine the optimal sequence of proceedings," it should apply a general preference to have the suppression hearing conducted first in the Family Part. State in Int. of E.S., 470 N.J. Super. 9, 13-14, 268 A.3d 363 (App. Div. 2021). The Appellate Division found that in this case, however, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to hold the waiver hearing first. Id. at 14, 268 A.3d 363.
E.S. filed a motion for leave to appeal, and the State filed a motion for leave to cross-appeal. We granted both motions. 250 N.J. 7, 268 A.3d 1012 (2022) ; 250 N.J. 13, 268 A.3d 1016 (2022). We also granted leave to appear as amici curiae to the Attorney General of New Jersey; the Rutgers Criminal and Youth Justice Clinic, the Gault Center, and the New Jersey Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (collectively, the "Rutgers amici"); and the New Jersey Juvenile Prosecutors Leadership Network (JPLN).
The issues presented by this appeal are (1) whether the Family Part should "apply a general preference" to hear suppression motions before deciding waiver motions; and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in this case by choosing to hear the State's waiver motion before E.S.’s suppression motion.
E.S. argues that this Court should affirm the Appellate Division's ruling by establishing a per se rule -- or, at minimum, a presumption -- that suppression motions should always be heard prior to waiver motions. E.S. requests that we reverse the Appellate Division's remand instructions to the Family Part and direct that the trial court hear his suppression motion before the waiver motion.2
The State requests that this Court reverse the Appellate Division's ruling and adopt a bright-line rule declaring that waiver motions should be heard before substantive motions, such as motions to suppress. The State argues that the Appellate Division erred by applying a general preference to hold suppression hearings prior to waiver hearings, which (1) is at odds with the nature of waiver hearings as a preliminary jurisdictional determination; (2) creates confusion for trial courts applying the preference; and (3) is unnecessary given the speculative harms, current statutory structure, and procedural safeguards protecting a juvenile.
The Attorney General echoes many of the State's arguments and asks this Court to affirm the Appellate Division but to hold that Family Part judges should have discretion to proceed with waiver before the parties litigate a juvenile defendant's suppression motion. JPLN agrees with the State and the Attorney General and asks this Court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial