State v. S.N., A–60 September Term 2016
Decision Date | 30 January 2018 |
Docket Number | 079320,A–60 September Term 2016 |
Citation | 231 N.J. 497,176 A.3d 813 |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. S.N., Defendant–Respondent. |
Sarah Lichter, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Sarah Lichter, of counsel and on the brief; Jeffrey L. Weinstein, Hunterdon County Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
Philip De Vencentes argued the cause for respondent (Galantucci, Patuto, De Vencentes, Potter & Doyle, attorneys; Philip De Vencentes, on the briefs; Richard G. Potter, of counsel and on the briefs).
Frank J. Ducoat, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor Director, argued the cause for amicus curiae County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey (Richard T. Burke, President, attorney; Frank J. Ducoat, of counsel and on the brief; Kayla Elizabeth Rowe, on the brief).
Alexander R. Shalom argued 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. LoCicero, on the brief).
Elizabeth C. Jarit, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Office of the Public Defender (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Elizabeth C. Jarit, of counsel and on the brief).
In this appeal, we determine the proper standard for appellate review of pretrial detention decisions under the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA), N.J.S.A. 2A:162–15 to –26. After doing so, we must apply that standard to the facts of the present appeal.
We conclude that the proper standard of appellate review is whether the trial court abused its discretion by relying on an impermissible basis, by relying upon irrelevant or inappropriate factors, by failing to consider all relevant factors, or by making a clear error in judgment.
Here, we affirm the Appellate Division's judgment reversing the trial court's decision to detain defendant. We do so because the trial court relied on inappropriate factors and failed to consider all relevant factors in finding that there was sufficient evidence before the court to overcome the presumption of defendant's release.
The facts and procedural history are culled from the record of defendant's detention hearing.
In March 2017, law enforcement obtained an arrest warrant for defendant S.N.1 for acts alleged to have been committed against his stepdaughter2 in 2012. In a complaint-warrant, the State charged defendant with first-degree aggravated sexual assault on a person under the age of thirteen, N.J.S.A. 2C:14–2(a)(1) ; fourth-degree lewdness, N.J.S.A. 2C:14–4(b)(1) ; and second-degree child endangerment, N.J.S.A. 2C:24–4(a).3 The affidavit of probable cause in support of the complaint-warrant stated that the victim told a staff member at her school that defendant came into her bedroom and sexually assaulted her approximately fifty times while she was in the sixth and seventh grades. The affidavit also disclosed that, in 2015, the victim told a friend that defendant had "touched her in a sexual manner." In addition, the State prepared a preliminary law enforcement incident report (PLEIR), which stated that "defendant was known to the victim as [f]amily."
Following defendant's arrest, a pretrial services officer prepared a Public Safety Assessment (PSA)4 that rated defendant a 1 out of 6—the lowest possible risk score—for both failure to appear and new criminal activity. The PSA noted that defendant did not have any prior criminal history or failures to appear, but the current charges pending against defendant stemmed from a violent offense. Despite the low risk scores, the PSA concluded "No Release Recommended."
The State moved for pretrial detention, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:162–19. In support of its pretrial detention motion, the prosecution certified that the charged crime could subject defendant to "an ordinary or extended term of life imprisonment,"5 there is a "serious risk" that "defendant will not appear in court," and "defendant will pose a danger to any other person or the community." In addition, the certification stated,
The State also sought a restraining order to prohibit defendant from having contact with the victim, her mother, and his three biological children (the victim's half-siblings).
Defense counsel countered that the State did not present clear and convincing evidence to support its detention motion, and that the State's arguments were based on "mere speculation." Defense counsel further noted that defendant had no prior record, including no disorderly persons offenses, had no failures to appear, was gainfully employed, and had the support of his adoptive parents, who live in New Jersey. Regarding defendant's biological mother in Canada, defense counsel stated defendant has not had "telephonic or face-to-face contact with her" and defendant "doesn't even know where she lives." Counsel noted that defendant's biological mother had visited New Jersey "more than a decade ago," but it "ended in [defendant's] getting a restraining order against her, [and] her being physically removed from his house by the police."
Further, defense counsel claimed that defendant lived in the same home as the victim "until a couple of years ago" and that "no further problems apparently ... have been even alleged." Defense counsel also asserted that defendant is involved in the lives of his three biological children and has had "constant contact" with them despite no longer living in the same household.
The trial court issued an oral ruling at the end of the detention hearing granting the State's motion for pretrial detention and the restraining order. The court found that the State had established probable cause that defendant committed the charged offenses. In making the pretrial detention determination, the judge reviewed the circumstances of the charged offenses, the potential sentence if convicted, defendant's risk of flight in light of his dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship, and the potential for defendant's obstruction of the criminal justice process "[b]ased on the fact that this is essentially a he said, she said situation."
The court gave great weight to "the nature and seriousness of the danger to any other person or community that would be posed by the defendant's release." Also, the court specifically found that defendant is eligible for detention under the statute "because this is a first degree [offense] with No Early Release attaching to it pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:162–19(a)(1)." The court summarized its detention decision as follows:
In "[t]he history and characteristics of the defendant" section of the pretrial detention order, the court wrote, Under "[t]he nature and seriousness of the danger to any other person or the community that would be posed by the defendant's release," the court wrote that the alleged crime was a first-degree aggravated sexual assault and further noted "NERA." Regarding the risk of obstruction, the court wrote "potential to intimidate." The court also listed "Further Reasons for Pretrial Detention":
Pursuant to Rule 2:9–13, defendant appealed from the trial court's pretrial detention order, and the Appellate Division reversed and released defendant with conditions. The panel, citing State v. C.W., 449 N.J. Super. 231, 156 A.3d 1088 (App. Div. 2017), found that "[t]he trial court abused its discretion by not considering defendant's age, level of prior criminal involvement and ties to the community." The Appellate Division required as part of defendant's release that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Corpus
...Lathan v. State (1988) 188 Ga.App. 439, 373 S.E.2d 388, 389 ; Fischer v. Ball (1957) 212 Md. 517, 129 A.2d 822, 827 ; State v. S.N. (2018) 231 N.J. 497, 176 A.3d 813, 824 ; People ex rel. Shapiro v. Keeper of City Prison (1943) 290 N.Y. 393, 49 N.E.2d 498, 501 ; Com. v. Pal (Pa.Super.Ct. 20......
-
State v. Watson
...afforded under the Sixth Amendment, as distinct from N.J.R.E. 404(b), constitutes an abuse of discretion. Cf. State v. S.N., 231 N.J. 497, 500, 176 A.3d 813 (2018) (noting in the context of a pretrial detention hearing that "failing to consider all relevant factors" can constitute an abuse ......
-
State v. Carroll
...by the First Amendment.III. We review the trial court's decision to detain a defendant for an abuse of discretion. State v. S.N., 231 N.J. 497, 515, 176 A.3d 813 (2018). We consider whether the trial court rested its decision on an impermissible basis, or failed to consider relevant factors......
-
State v. Ramirez
...of discretion review standard). A trial court can abuse its discretion "by failing to consider all relevant factors." State v. S.N., 231 N.J. 497, 500, 176 A.3d 813 (2018). Our appellate courts will set aside or modify such decisions if they do not comport with the applicable law or do not ......