State in Interest of A.T.
| Decision Date | 11 January 1991 |
| Citation | 584 A.2d 861,245 N.J.Super. 224 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey in the Interest of A.T., a juvenile. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Herbert H. Tate, Jr., Essex County Prosecutor, for appellant State of New Jersey (Debra G. Lynch, Asst. Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Wilfredo Caraballo, Public Defender, for respondent (Matthew Astore, Deputy Public Defender II, of counsel and on the letter brief).
Before Judges ANTELL, O'BRIEN and SCALERA.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ANTELL, P.J.A.D.
The State appeals by leave granted from an interlocutory order of the Family Part denying its motion for waiver of jurisdiction to allow for treatment of the juvenile as an adult. The reason given by the Family Court for its action was that the State had failed to prove probable cause to believe that the juvenile committed a delinquent act as required by N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26a(2). The delinquent act charged herein would, if committed by an adult, constitute the crime of armed robbery.
The State's evidence was presented entirely through the testimony of Police Officer Dennis McCauley of the Newark Police Department and two police incident reports. One report was prepared by Officer Gregory Millstein, and the other was prepared by Officer McCauley. According to the Millstein report, Hector Medina was approached on the street by two young men whom he later allegedly identified as J.O. and A.T. J.O. brandished a handgun and A.T. demanded that Medina give up his money upon threat of death. The report further states that the victim fled into a nearby store and called the police. Officers Millstein and Richard Cuccolo responded and drove with Medina through the neighborhood in an unsuccessful search for the assailants.
Later that day Millstein related the incident to Officer McCauley who recognized the juveniles from their description. In fact, McCauley had arrested A.T. on a previous occasion. McCauley and his partner, Joseph Farina, then drove around the area and found A.T. standing on the corner of Broadway and Bloomfield Place. The officers advised him that he was a suspect in an attempted robbery and then transported him to Police Headquarters, presumably for questioning. As the officers were walking with A.T. through the precinct assembly room back to the holding area, Hector Medina, who was sitting there, identified A.T. by saying "that's the guy." There is a dispute in the testimony as to whether A.T. was handcuffed at the time. McCauley testified that he was not, whereas A.T. says that he was. In his testimony, A.T. also denied any knowledge of the offense. 1
The reasons given by the Family Part judge for denying the State's motion seem to be grounded in his disapproval of the procedure followed by the police in bringing A.T. into headquarters and for failing to administer to A.T. the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), rehearing den., 385 U.S. 890, 87 S.Ct. 11, 17 L.Ed.2d 121 (1966) 2. He noted that He stated that he did not believe McCauley's testimony that A.T. was not handcuffed and concluded that when A.T. was "walked into that police station, handcuffed, as I believe he was, I don't think that victim had any choice but to identify him and say well yeah, he was--he was the assistant [sic], he was there." The motion was denied, as the judge said, because "I believe what this defendant is saying."
The question before the court was whether the State had demonstrated probable cause. Probable cause within this context is no more than a well-grounded suspicion or belief that an offense has taken place and that A.T. was a party to it. See State v. DeSimone, 60 N.J. 319, 322, 288 A.2d 849 (1972); State I/I/O J.L.W., 236 N.J.Super. 336, 347, 565 A.2d 1106 (App.Div.1989)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State in Interest of B.G.
... ... 274, 286, 556 A.2d 1283 (App.Div.1989) (citing State v. DeSimone, 60 N.J. 319, 322, 288 A.2d 849 (1972)). While "the suspicion of guilt must be something more than a raw, unsupported suspicion, it may be something less than the proof needed to convict." A.J., 232 N.J.Super. at 286, 556 A.2d 1283. The probable cause phase of a waiver hearing is a preliminary proceeding. State in the Interest of J.L.W., 236 N.J.Super. 336, 346, 565 A.2d 1106 (App.Div.1989). Probable cause may be established on the basis of hearsay evidence alone, because a probable cause hearing "does ... ...
-
In re State in Interest of E.S.
... ... 2A:4A-26.1. The question arises in a context where the juvenile moves to suppress evidence that the State will rely upon at the waiver hearing and also possibly seek to admit at an eventual trial.Should the suppression hearing be conducted first by a judge in the Family Part before the waiver hearing? Or should the waiver hearing take precedence, and, if the juvenile is waived, the suppression hearing then be conducted ... ...
-
Eck, Matter of
... ... about 1983, petitioner began to have the appearance of a woman and dressed as a woman except at work. Since November 1988 petitioner has lived full-time with a female ... appearance ... ...