State v. Robinson

Decision Date10 May 2017
Parties STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Habeeb ROBINSON, Defendant–Respondent.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Elie Honig, Director, Division of Criminal Justice, Office of the Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Claudia Joy Demitro, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the briefs).

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Elizabeth C. Jarit, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).

Paul H. Heinzel, Somerset County Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for amicus curiae, County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (Richard T. Burke, President, attorney).

Alexander R. Shalomargued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (Edward L. Barocas, Legal Director, attorney; Alexander R. Shalom, Edward L. Barocas, and Jeanne M. LoCiceroon the brief).

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this appeal, we consider the newly enacted Criminal Justice Reform Act for the first time and address the type and scope of discovery the State must provide when it seeks to detain a defendant pretrial.

The new law changed the landscape of the State's criminal justice system relating to pretrial release. The statute marked a shift away from heavy reliance on monetary bail. Judges now have the authority to detain defendants prior to trial if they present a serious risk of danger, flight, or obstruction. N.J.S.A. 2A:162–18(a)(1). Defendants who pose less risk can be released on their own recognizance or on conditions that pretrial services officers monitor. N.J.S.A. 2A:162–17, –25(d). The law also sets forth new speedy trial rules that apply to defendants who are detained. N.J.S.A. 2A:162–22.

In this case, defendant Habeeb Robinson was arrested on January 4, 2017 and charged with murder and weapons offenses. The State moved to detain him. In connection with the detention hearing, both the trial court and the Appellate Division directed the State to disclose the statements of two eyewitnesses, photos used in the identification process, any incident report of the crime prepared by the police, and a surveillance video.

We find that Rule 3:4–2(c)(1)(B), on which the courts relied, required disclosure of the reports and the photos but not the video. We also take this opportunity to clarify and reframe the Rule to help ensure that it strikes the proper balance between two important concerns: a defendant's liberty interest and the State's ability to seek to detain high-risk defendants before trial.

I.

We begin with an overview of the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA or Act), N.J.S.A. 2A:162–15 to –26, and certain related court rules to offer context for the discussion that follows.

A.

Before this year, New Jersey had long guaranteed defendants the right to bail. The 1844 Constitution added a provision that had existed by statute for more than a century: "All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offences, when the proof is evident or presumption great." N.J. Const. of 1844 , art. I, ¶ 10 ; see also State v. Johnson , 61 N.J. 351, 354, 294 A .2d 245 (1972). The 1947 Constitution retained the same language. N.J. Const. of 1947 , art. I, ¶ 11 (2016).

Beginning in 2007, when the Legislature eliminated the death penalty for murder, see State v. Fortin , 198 N.J. 619, 624, 969 A .2d 1133 (2009), the constitutional right to bail applied in all cases, seeReport of the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice 18–19, 18 n.42 (Mar. 10, 2014), http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/pressrel/2014/FinalReport_3_20_2014.pdf (JCCJ Report ).

In practice, New Jersey's system of pretrial release relied heavily on the use of monetary bail "to insure [the] presence of the accused at the trial." Johnson , supra , 61 N.J. at 364, 294 A. 2d 245. Defendants had to post cash or arrange for a bond to secure their release.

The system had direct consequences: any defendants—even those who posed a substantial risk of flight or danger to the community—could be released if they had access to untainted funds to post as bail. See N.J.S.A. 2A:162–13(b). Meanwhile, poorer defendants accused of less serious crimes, who presented minimal risk, were held in custody if they could not post even modest amounts of bail.

A March 2013 study of New Jersey's county jails revealed that twelve percent of inmates were in custody pretrial because they could not pay $2500 or less. Marie VanNostrand, Ph.D., Luminosity & the Drug Policy Alliance, New Jersey Jail Population Analysis 13 (Mar. 2013), https://university.pretrial.org/viewdocument/new-jersey-jail-popu. About 800 inmates "could have secured their release for $500 or less"; "an additional 259 inmates could have secured their release for between $501 and $1,000[;] and an additional 489 inmates could have secured their release for between $1,001 and $2500." Ibid. In other words, one in eight inmates, who posed little risk, sat in jail pretrial because they were poor, while defendants charged with serious crimes who posed a substantial risk of danger or flight could be released into the community without monitoring so long as they could make bail.

A number of steps were taken in the past five years to address those system-wide problems. In 2012, Governor Christie called for a constitutional amendment to allow for pretrial detention in serious cases. Administrative Office of the Courts, Criminal Justice Reform: Annual Report to the Governor & Legislature 1 (2016), https://www2.njcourts.gov/courts/assets/criminal/2016cjrannual.pdf. The following year, the Judiciary established the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice, "comprised of members from all three branches of state government including the Attorney General, Public Defender, private attorneys, judges, court administrators, and representatives of the Legislature and the Governor's Office, to examine New Jersey's criminal justice system." Ibid. The Committee issued a report in March 2014, which recommended a series of changes to New Jersey's criminal justice system and focused, in particular, on bail reform and the need for a speedy trial act. SeeJCCJ Report , supra , at 1.

The Legislature held hearings to consider the Committee's findings and recommendations, and ultimately adopted a proposal to amend the State Constitution to permit detention

if the court finds that no amount of monetary bail, non-monetary conditions of pretrial release, or combination of monetary bail and non-monetary conditions would reasonably assure the person's appearance in court when required, or protect the safety of any other person or the community, or prevent the person from obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process.
[S. Con. Res. No. 128 , 216th Leg. (2014).]

The Legislature also drafted a bill, S. 946/A. 1910 (2014), discussed in detail below, to reform the system of pretrial release and provide for more timely trials for defendants who are detained. Governor Christie signed the new law on August 11, 2014. L. 2014, c. 31 (codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:162–15 to –26).

The Criminal Justice Reform Act has three principal components. First, it allows for pretrial detention of defendants who present such a serious risk of danger, flight, or obstruction that no combination of release conditions would be adequate. N.J.S.A. 2A:162–18(a)(1). Second, the Act replaced the system's prior heavy reliance on monetary bail. The law instead calls for an objective evaluation of each defendant's risk level and consideration of conditions of release that pretrial services officers will monitor. N.J.S.A. 2A:162–17, –25(d). In that way, low-level offenders will not be penalized because they cannot afford to post bail. Finally, the Act establishes statutory speedy trial deadlines for defendants who are detained pending trial. N.J.S.A. 2A:162–22.

The law was contingent on passage of the proposed constitutional amendment, which voters approved by a wide margin of 61.8 to 38.2 percent in November 2014. Div. of Elections, Dep't of State, Official List: Public Question Results for 11/04/2014 General Election Public Question No. 1 1 (Dec. 2, 2014), http://nj.gov/state/elections/2014–results/2014–official-general-public-question–1.pdf.

The Criminal Justice Reform Act took effect on January 1, 2017. N.J.S.A. 2A:162–15 to –26. We summarize its provisions and focus in particular on parts of the law that relate to pretrial detention.

The Act "shall be liberally construed" to effect its purpose: to rely primarily on "pretrial release by non-monetary means to reasonably assure" that a defendant will "appear[ ] in court when required," will not endanger "the safety of any other person or the community," and "will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process." N.J.S.A. 2A:162–15. If a court finds by clear and convincing evidence that "no condition or combination of conditions" would achieve those goals, the court, upon motion by the prosecutor, may order that a defendant be held pending trial. Ibid.

A court may set monetary bail "only when ... no other conditions of release will reasonably assure the eligible defendant's appearance in court." Ibid. The statute defines "eligible defendant" as a person initially charged in a complaint-warrant with an indictable offense or a disorderly persons offense, unless otherwise stated. Ibid.

After a complaint-warrant is issued, eligible defendants "shall be temporarily detained to allow the Pretrial Services Program to prepare a risk assessment" and recommend conditions of release. N.J.S.A. 2A:162–16(a) ; see also N.J.S.A. 2A:162–25. Within 48 hours of a defendant's commitment to jail, the court must "make a pretrial release decision." N.J.S.A. 2A:162–16(b)(1). Defendants who are released must receive notice of any conditions imposed and the consequences for violating...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • State v. Desir
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • February 9, 2021
    ...A.3d 559 ). That Rule "obligates the State to provide full discovery ... when an indictment is returned or unsealed," State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 72, 160 A.3d 1 (2017), "[e]xcept for good cause shown," R. 3:13-3(b)(1). Full discovery, under Rule 3:13-3(b)(1), "shall include exculpatory ......
  • State v. McCray
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 29, 2019
    ...to 3156, and the District of Columbia's statutory scheme for pretrial detention, D.C. Code. §§ 23-1321 to - 1333." State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 56, 160 A.3d 1 (2017). The Court pointed out that one of the sponsors of the legislation stated in a public hearing that "the Legislature looked......
  • Holland v. Rosen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 21, 2017
    ...risk of flight or danger to the community—could be released if they had access to untainted funds to post as bail." State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 52–53, 160 A.3d 1 (2017). On the other hand, "poorer defendants accused of less serious crimes, who presented minimal risk, were held in custod......
  • State v. Washington
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • February 16, 2018
    ...N.J. 242, 257, 141 A.3d 1178 (2016) (citing R. 3:13–3(f) ). Thus, the BCPO did not commit a discovery violation.B.In State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 160 A.3d 1 (2017), our Supreme Court analyzed the different discovery rule for pretrial detention hearings, which provided "the prosecutor sha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT