State v. Leonardis

• Decision Date: 21 July 1976
• Citation: 363 A.2d 321,71 N.J. 85
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank LEONARDIS, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stephen ROSE, Defendant-Appellant, and Michael Battaglia and Dale Battaglia, Defendants. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frederick John STRYCHNEWICZ, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 85

71 N.J. 85

363 A.2d 321

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frank LEONARDIS, Defendant-Appellant.

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stephen ROSE, Defendant-Appellant, and Michael Battaglia and Dale Battaglia, Defendants.

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frederick John STRYCHNEWICZ, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Jan. 27, 1976.

Decided July 21, 1976.

Dennis P. LaHiff, Garfield, for appellant Leonardis (Messineo & Messineo, Garfield, attorneys).

Leopold Monaco, Westwood, for appellant Rose (Monaco & Oratio, Westwood, attorneys).

John A. McLaughlin, First Asst. Prosecutor, for appellant Hudson County Prosecutor (James T. O'Halloran, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney; William Z. Shulman, Asst. Prosecutor, on the brief).

John J. Langan, Jr., Roseland, for respondent Bergen County Pretrial Intervention Program (Vincent P. Rigolosi, Hackensack, attorney).

Richard J. Williams, for amicus curiae New Jersey Prosecutors Ass'n (Marc J. Friedman, of counsel and on the brief).

Ezra D. Rosenberg, Perth Amboy, for amicus curiae Office of the Public Defender (Stanley Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney; Ezra D. Rosenberg of counsel and on the brief).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

PASHMAN, J.

These three appeals were joined to consider the validity of certain aspects of the pretrial intervention programs (PTI) established in Bergen and Hudson Counties pursuant to R. 3:28. ¹ The issues posed by these appeals are not identical, though the questions they raise all concern the fundamental nature and fairness of PTI.

The pretrial intervention program is an alternative procedure to the traditional process of prosecuting criminal defendants. It is intended to augment the criminal justice system where prosecution would be counterproductive, ineffective or unwarranted. Sponsored in conjunction with various counseling and training services, PTI serves a rehabilitative purpose and ameliorates the stigma which is imposed on criminal defendants. While PTI may incidentally provide prosecutors with another means to dispose of cases and the opportunity to reduce the backlog of litigated cases which currently plagues the courts, it relieves a selected class of criminal suspects of the time-consuming and often debilitating rigors of the criminal process.

Two defendants in the instant matter, Leonardis and Rose, sought admission to the pretrial intervention program of Bergen County; Strychnewicz sought admission to the Hudson County program. The appeals of defendants Leonardis and Rose are closely related due to similar dispositions by the trial court. Leonardis was arrested by the Bergen County Narcotics Task Force for possession of marijuana, a controlled dangerous substance and charged with violating N.J.S.A. 24:21--19(a)(1). In an unrelated matter, Rose was arrested and indicted for possession of marijuana and for conspiracy with two other individuals to possess and distribute a controlled dangerous substance, contrary to N.J.S.A. 24:21--19(a)(1) and 24:21--24. Both Leonardis and Rose applied for admission to the PTI program established in Bergen County under R. 3:28. After perfunctory interviews by program officials, defendants were denied admission. ² These denials were based on exclusionary criteria established by the Bergen County program in conjunction with the basic court rule. ³ In particular, these criteria exclude individuals who are charged with certain 'Heinous Offenses,' among which is the 'Sale of a Controlled Dangerous Substance.'

Defendants filed separate motions for an order directing the Program Director to accept their applications. The motions were heard together with that of a third defendant by the judge designated by the assignment judge under R. 3:28(a). In his oral opinion denying these motions, the judge stated:

Now, the Court has taken the position all along--and I don't think its position is unknown--I have taken the position in previous matters before me that there is no fundamental right to pretrial intervention at all as long as the eligibility criteria (sic) does not discriminate against what we might call a constitutional protective (sic) class such as one founded on race or wealth. But the State need only demonstrate the criteria is (sic) relevant and has basis for which the classification is made

In any event, I don't feel that there is any arbitrary action in this particular matter here before me. I think they have a right to interpret the program, the intervention project, as they did under the circumstances. The project which was approved says that ordinarily drug offenses, sale of dangerous drugs, are not, must be excluded. And I haven't found anything here which is before me which indicate (sic) there should be an exception in this particular case.

Defendants subsequently filed motions for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division, which were denied. Similar motions filed with this Court were granted.

Defendant Strychnewicz was indicted in Hudson County for possession of and possession with intent to distribute hashish, a controlled dangerous substance, in violation of N.J.S.A. 24:21--20(a) and 24:21--19(a)(1) respectively. Defendant applied for and was denied admission to the Hudson County Pretrial Intervention Program because the County Prosecutor would not consent to a postponement of proceedings under R. 3:28(b). Defendant moved to compel the prosecutor to provide a written explanation for his refusal to consent. After the motion was granted, the prosecutor sought leave to appeal to the Appellate Division which motion was denied. A comparable motion was presented to this Court and granted.

I PRETRIAL INTERVENTION AS A PROCEDURAL ALTERNATIVE

Pretrial intervention represents a procedural alternative to the traditional system of prosecuting and incarcerating criminal suspects, and was intended as a response to deficiencies in that system. Although the deficiencies which PTI attempts to address have existed for years, PTI is a fairly recent innovation, and has developed only within the last decade. While all PTI programs have common objectives and a common origin, they have exhibited substantial diversity in program goals and operational formats. An understanding of the premises upon which PTI rests is vital to comprehend the diverse ways in which the programs have been implemented, especially in New Jersey where programs differ from county to county.

In addition, an assessment of the purposes of pretrial intervention will provide a benchmark by which to measure the particular programs challenged here and the general scheme established pursuant to R. 3:28 a. The Administrative Evolution of Pretrial Intervention.

1. Early Implementation of the PTI Concept

While the origins of PTI may ultimately be found in traditional criminal procedures such as parole and probation, the formalization of that concept has emerged only during the last decade.

The initial impetus for development of PTI came from a 1967 report compiled by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. See President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967) (hereinafter referred to as The President's Comm'n.) This report, which was based upon a nationwide study, expressly recognized the desirability of alternative means for the disposition of criminal cases. In particular, it noted that due to the unsatisfactory performance of the criminal justice system, there was a need for prosecutorial options to augment those traditionally exercised by law enforcement authorities. The lack of sufficient resources, the often debilitating effects on a suspect from introduction to the criminal process and the failure of the system to rehabilitate criminal offenders were all cited as warranting attention. The Commission found that resolution of these problems might be accomplished by diversion of cases from the criminal process prior to prosecution. However, the report also recognized that the lack of information and the absence of clearly defined standards and procedures would initially frustrate the decisions of prosecutors concerning cases to be diverted. Consequently, the Commission recommended that:

Prosecutors should endeavor to make discriminating charge decisions, assuring that offenders who merit criminal sanctions are not released and that other offenders are either released or diverted to noncriminal methods of treatment and control by:

Establishment of explicit policies for the dismissal or informal disposition of the cases of certain marginal offenders.

Early identification and diversion to other community resources of those offenders in need of treatment, for whom full criminal disposition does not appear required. (1 The President's Comm'n, Supra, at 134).

Within a year of the publication of the Commission's report, two pilot PTI programs were established according to the general guidelines presented in the report. These programs, the Manhattan Court Employment Project and Project Crossroads in Washington, D.C., provided for the diversion of criminal cases involving juveniles, first-time offenders and defendants accused of committing misdemeanors and specified felonies. The identification of these individuals was intended to isolate suspects for whom prosecution in the traditional sense would be unnecessary, ineffective or counterproductive. The projects also sought to provide alternatives to defendants for whom rehabilitation was possible. In exchange for the suspension of prosecution, these individuals were required to participate in a community-based rehabilitation program which included counseling, training and job placement. See generally, Nat'l Pretrial Intervention Service Center, Descriptive Profiles on Selected Pretrial Criminal Justice Intervention Programs, 21--25 (1974) (hereinafter referred to as Descriptive Profiles); N...