State v. Lopez-Carrera

• Decision Date: 30 March 2021
• Docket Number: A-9 September Term 2020,084750,A-8 September Term 2020,084694
• Citation: 245 N.J. 596,247 A.3d 842
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Oscar LOPEZ-CARRERA, Defendant-Respondent. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Juan C. Molchor, Defendant-Respondent. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jose A. Rios, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

245 N.J. 596

247 A.3d 842

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Oscar LOPEZ-CARRERA, Defendant-Respondent.

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Juan C. Molchor, Defendant-Respondent.

State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Jose A. Rios, Defendant-Respondent.

A-8 September Term 2020

A-9 September Term 2020

084750

084694

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued November 30, 2020

Decided March 30, 2021

Paul Heinzel, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Lopez-Carrera (A-8-20) (Michael H. Robertson, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney; Paul Heinzel, of counsel and on the briefs).

Andrew R. Burroughs argued the cause for respondent in State v. Lopez-Carrera (A-8-20) (Bastarrika, Soto, Gonzalez & Somohano, attorneys; Andrew R. Burroughs, Florida, John T. Somohano, and Jerard A. Gonzalez, Woodland Park, on the briefs).

Dana R. Anton, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Christine A. Hoffman, Acting Gloucester County Prosecutor, attorney; Dana R. Anton, of counsel and on the briefs).

Tamar Y. Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender argued the cause for respondent Jose A. Rios in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Tamar Y. Lerer, of counsel and on the briefs).

Cristina L. Vazquez argued the cause for respondent Juan C. Molchor in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Cristina L. Vazquez, Cherry Hill, on the brief).

Sarah C. Hunt, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey in State v. Lopez-Carrera (A-8-20) and State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Sarah C. Hunt, of counsel and on the briefs).

Alexander Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom, Newark, on the brief).

Joanne Gottesman argued the cause for amici curiae Immigration Law Scholars and Clinical Professors in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Rutgers Law School Immigrant Justice Clinic, Boston College Legal Services Civil Rights Clinic, and the Cardozo School of Law Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic, attorneys; Joanne Gottesman, Reena Parikh, Haiyun Damon-Feng, of the Washington bar, practicing pursuant to R. 1:21-3(c), and Mauricio E. Norõna, of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice, on the brief).

Michael Noriega submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey in State v. Lopez-Carrera (A-8-20) and State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Bramnick Rodriguez Grabas Arnold & Mangan, attorneys; Michael Noriega, Newark, on the brief, and Cristina Carreno, of counsel and on the brief).

Richard D. Pompelio submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey Crime Victims’ Law Center in State v. Lopez-Carrera (A-8-20) (New Jersey Crime Victims’ Law Center, attorneys; Richard D. Pompelio, Warren, of counsel and on the brief).

Eric M. Mark submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae American Immigration Lawyers Association – New Jersey Chapter in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Eric M. Mark, Newark, on the brief).

CJ Griffin submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Make the Road New Jersey, Bangladeshi American Women's Development Initiative, Fair and Welcoming Communities Coalition of Somerset County, Faith in New Jersey, First Friends of New Jersey and New York, International Justice Project, MomsRising, National Coalition of Latino Officers, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Latino American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, Volunteer Lawyers for Justice, and Wind of the Spirit in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; CJ Griffin and Rachel E. Simon, on the brief).

Raquiba Huq submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Legal Services of New Jersey in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Legal Services of New Jersey, attorneys; Raquiba Huq, Rachel Salazar, and Melville D. Miller, Jr., on the brief).

Jennifer B. Condon submitted a brief amici curiae on behalf of National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Immigrant Defense Project, and Harvard Law School Crimmigration Clinic in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice, attorneys; Jennifer B. Condon, on the brief).

Susan G. Roy submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Round Table of Former Immigration Judges and Former Board of Immigration Appeals Members in State v. Molchor; State v. Rios (A-9-20) (Law Office of Susan G. Roy, attorneys; Susan G. Roy, on the brief).

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER delivered the opinion of the Court.

These consolidated appeals present a straightforward question: whether the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA or Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to -26, empowers judges to detain defendants who are non-citizens to prevent immigration officials from removing them from the country before trial.¹ The statute does not directly answer the question, and the Legislature did not debate the issue. But the language, structure, purpose, and history of the CJRA reveal the Act was designed to address a defendant's own choice not to appear in court, not independent actions by third parties like the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The CJRA favors pretrial release of defendants over detention. Id. at -15, -17. The law authorizes judges to detain defendants when the State has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that no conditions of release "would reasonably assure the eligible defendant's appearance in court when required," would protect the public, or would prevent the defendant from obstructing the criminal justice process. Id. at -18(a) (emphasis added). In other words, judges may detain defendants who present a substantial risk in any of those areas.

To make that determination, the Act directs judges to conduct an individualized assessment of the level of risk each defendant presents in light of their own conduct, history, and characteristics. See State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 54, 160 A.3d 1 (2017) ; N.J.S.A. 2A:162-20. The Act does not seek to detain defendants whose behavior poses a minimal level of risk, which describes all three defendants involved in these appeals. Nor does the CJRA cede control over pretrial release decisions to outside agencies. The statute's primary focus is on a defendant's behavior and choices, and the risk they present.

The language the Legislature placed in the CJRA supports that conclusion. The key word, "appearance," commonly points to acts or actions people choose to take, not decisions by others that may prevent someone from acting. Related provisions elsewhere in the Act, which offer context, reinforce the law's focus on a defendant's own conduct.

Parts of the legislative history likewise emphasize a defendant's voluntary behavior as the basis for pretrial detention. For example, a report on criminal justice reform that the Legislature relied on, as well as an interpretive statement for the voters that accompanied the proposed constitutional amendment to allow for pretrial detention, both focus on a defendant's choices, not conduct by others, as grounds for detention. The State and the Attorney General contend that an amendment to an earlier draft of the bill conclusively demonstrates the Legislature authorized detention of defendants who might fail to appear in court through no act of their own. It does not. Other reasons more persuasively account for the amendment, which the Legislature itself did not explain.

Here, the question before the Court affects a relatively small number of cases. All of them involve individuals who would not otherwise be detained as high-risk defendants. In other words, the cases involve people whose own behavior and history do not present a serious risk of non-appearance, danger, or obstruction. Individuals would be detained solely because of their immigration status and the risk ICE might remove them -- a risk that is difficult to measure because removal decisions are highly discretionary and involve complex legal issues.

The record reveals the Legislature did not discuss or set a policy for those individuals. Although the Legislature looked to the federal Bail Reform Act when it drafted the CJRA, it chose not to include language about immigration status that appears in the federal statute.

Courts are obligated to give effect to the Legislature's intent, not to craft a policy on an issue the Legislature has not addressed. See State v. S.B., 230 N.J. 62, 67-68, 165 A.3d 722 (2017). We agree with the Appellate Division that the language of the Act, coupled with its history, does not authorize judges to detain defendants to thwart their possible removal by ICE. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division.

Federal law provides for coordination between federal prosecutors and immigration officials after a non-citizen is arrested. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(d). Our criminal justice system functions best when the State has an opportunity to present its proofs to try to enforce the law, when defendants who stand accused can defend themselves in court, and when victims and witnesses can be heard and treated with dignity and respect. We therefore encourage ICE to coordinate with State prosecutors and allow the criminal justice system to complete its work while charges are pending against non-citizens in state court.

I.

A.

On January 8, 2020, defendants Juan Molchor and Jose Rios were arrested and charged with second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1), and fourth-degree criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3(a)(1). They allegedly punched and struck an acquaintance over the head with beer bottles at a party. The victim reportedly suffered a severe laceration and...