State v. J.M.
| Decision Date | 17 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-2984-21 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. J.M., Defendant-Respondent. TANISHA LITTLE, Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Submitted April 17, 2023
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Essex County, Municipal Appeal No. 2022-05.
Arseneault & Fassett, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Jack Arseneault and Greg Jones, on the briefs).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Stephen A. Pogany, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
Fusco & Macaluso, PC, attorneys for respondent J.M. (Joely Reyes, on the brief).
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Mitterhoff.
Tanisha Little appeals from the April 18, 2022 Law Division order dismissing her municipal appeal filed under the Crime Victim's Bill of Rights (CVBR), N.J.S.A. 52:4B-34 to -38 and the Victims' Rights Amendment of the New Jersey Constitution (VRA), N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 22, for lack of standing. Because we hold that Little has standing to enforce her right under the CVBR and VRA, we reverse and remand for a determination on the merits.
The municipal appeal arose from a dismissal order entered in the Belleville Municipal Court on the municipal prosecutor's motion. The order dismissed a complaint-summons charging defendant J.M. with simple assault of Little. Little and J.M. were both police officers employed by the Township of Irvington Department of Public Safety (IDPS). On March 4, 2021, J.M. allegedly assaulted Little "by striking her left arm with force and pushing her" as Little was leaving the IDPS communications center. Following the incident, Little was taken to a local urgent care center for medical treatment. The altercation was captured on IDPS surveillance cameras, and was further documented by medical treatment records and an IDPS Internal Affairs report in which J.M. reportedly admitted striking Little.
On July 21, 2021, an Irvington Municipal Court Judicial Officer issued a complaint-summons against J.M. for simple assault, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1). The matter was ultimately transferred to the Belleville Municipal Court "due to conflicts of interest." A hearing on the complaint was conducted in Belleville Municipal Court on October 20, 2021. During the hearing, Little, who was then self-represented, participated in a Zoom "breakout room" with the municipal prosecutor assigned to the case, Krenar Camili. In a subsequent certification submitted in support of Little's motion to reinstate the complaint, Little detailed the ensuing discussions between herself and Camili.
Little averred that in the breakout room, Camili informed her that he had already spoken to J.M.'s attorney, who had provided him with the IDPS surveillance footage of the incident. According to Little, Camili "placed [her] on hold" while he reviewed the footage. Camili returned "approximately one minute" later and told her "he was dismissing the case." Camili described the video "as showing [Little] move from one side of the video frame to [J.M.'s] side, then 'somebody bump[ed] into somebody,' words [were] exchanged, and someone else step[ped] in between [them]."
When Little told Camili that J.M. "physically hit [Little] on [her] left arm," Camili "asked [Little] when." Despite Little's attempts to elaborate, Camili "interrupted [Little] and would not let [her] continue" to respond to the question. When Little informed Camili that she "had proof of medical treatment for the injury caused by [J.M.]," Camili "refused to look at [her] proofs and told [her] bluntly that [she] was not hit." Camili further declared that "his view of the video was that [Little] 'shoulder checked' [J.M.], [and] therefore, any injuries [Little] received were caused by [Little]." Camili concluded the meeting by telling Little that she "could tell the judge whatever [she] wanted later in open court."
According to Little, the municipal court judge allowed her to make a statement on the record, during which she asserted that she "could offer proofs of the assault, including: (1) [an] expert-enhanced video . . ., (2) [her] medical records from the day of the offense . . ., and (3) [J.M.'s] written admission in an Internal Affairs report that she struck [Little]." In her certification, Little explained that because the original surveillance footage was "dark and grainy, and . . . hard to see and interpret accurately[,] . . . at [her] own personal expense, [she had] retained a video expert to enhance, clarify, and slow down the video."
Little stated that the enhanced version "clearly show[ed] that [she] did not touch [J.M.] and certainly did not 'shoulder check' her."
After hearing her statement, the municipal court judge "asked . . . Camili if those proofs would alter his determination not to prosecute," to which Camili "adamantly stated that they would not, and . . . maintained his position that the matter should be dismissed." The judge accepted Camili's answer and dismissed the complaint forthwith.
Little's subsequent attempts to obtain relief from the dismissal resulted in a cacophony of errors, none of which were her doing. First, Little's timely request for a transcript of the October 20 proceedings ended unsuccessfully when the Belleville Municipal Court Administrator informed Little's newly-retained attorney that it "'d[id] not have any record on the requested case.'" Little's attempt to move for reconsideration fared no better.
On November 8, 2021, Little filed a timely motion for reconsideration in Belleville Municipal Court, alleging violations of her rights under the CVBR and the VRA based on Camili's refusal to consider the evidence she offered. In a supporting certification submitted by Little's attorney, counsel averred that in response to an inquiry regarding the status of the reconsideration motion, he was informed that the Belleville Municipal Court "had no record of the motion, that [the motion] was not on the docket, and that the file had likely been transferred to Irvington Municipal Court." Upon contacting Irvington Municipal Court, Little's counsel was informed that Irvington Municipal Court "had no record of the matter in its system."
During the ensuing months, Little's counsel repeatedly contacted both courts regarding the status of the reconsideration motion. Finally, on March 4, 2022, one year after the alleged assault, Belleville Municipal Court issued a letter to counsel which contained no reference to the pending reconsideration motion. Instead, the letter addressed "the prospective filing of a new charge against J.M." In response to counsel's attempt to correct the court's misapprehension of the underlying issue, court staff explained to counsel that "the courts did not know how to handle the motion" because after the complaint had been dismissed, "J.M. had been granted an expungement." A subsequent letter from the court to Little's counsel dated March 7, 2022, did not reference an expungement but stated, "[a]s no complaint currently exists in this matter the [c]ourt does not have the ability [to] hear your motion to reconsider." (Third alteration in original).
Upon receipt of the letter, Little filed an appeal with the Law Division, reasoning that the March 7 letter "act[ed] as a final order of a court of limited jurisdiction, denying as moot . . . Little's [m]otion for [r]econsideration." On April 18, 2022, the Law Division judge issued an order dismissing the appeal "with prejudice, pursuant to Rules 3:23-2 and 3:23-9, as [Little] ha[d] no standing to appeal and in any event is not entitled to the relief requested because [she] is not a prosecuting attorney." In an accompanying written opinion, the judge noted the "procedural morass" created in the municipal courts, but elected to deem the reconsideration motion denied in the interest of "judicial economy."
Turning to the issue of standing, the judge acknowledged the appeal's basis in the CVBR and VRA. However, relying on our opinions in State v. Bradley, 420 N.J.Super. 138 (App. Div. 2011), and State v. Vitiello, 377 N.J.Super. 452 (App. Div. 2005), the judge noted that a complainant lacked standing to appeal the order of the municipal court dismissing their complaint where neither the complainant nor the complainant's attorney was designated as a private prosecutor under Rule 3:23-9(d) or qualified for such a designation under Rule 7:8-7(b).
Rule 7:8-7(b) allows the court to designate "an attorney to appear as a private prosecutor to represent the State in cases involving cross-complaints."
The judge observed:
[T]he municipal court never designated [Little] or her attorney as a "private prosecutor," nor was it requested. . . . [T]here were no cross-complaints, no assent of the municipal prosecutor, and there was no motion with the required supporting forms and certifications. Thus, under Bradley and Vitiello, [Little] does not have standing to appeal the dismissal of...
To continue reading
Request your trial