State In the Interest of V.A. makes it more difficult for prosecutors to send juvenile cases to adult court

State In the Interest of V.A. makes it more difficult for prosecutors to send juvenile cases to adult court  

Decided September 12, 2012

lavecchia, J., writing for a majority of the Court.

In these appeals, the Court considers the standard governing judicial review of a prosecutor’s decision to waive certain juveniles into adult criminal court.

Under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26, the prosecutor may, in his discretion, file a motion to waive a juvenile charged with certain enumerated offenses into adult criminal court. In 2000, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26 to eliminate the opportunity for juveniles aged sixteen and over to present rehabilitation evidence to defeat waiver. Once the State has established probable cause that the juvenile committed an enumerated offense, waiver is required. Thus, the Legislature vested the prosecutor’s office with the primary responsibility for waiver decisions regarding such juveniles. The Legislature directed the Attorney General to issue guidelines to ensure uniform application of this prosecutorial discretion and thereby eliminate arbitrariness or abuse of discretionary power. The Attorney General promulgated “Juvenile Waiver Guidelines,” which provided that the prosecutor must weigh the following factors when determining whether to file a juvenile waiver motion: “Nature of the Offense,” “Deterrence,” “Effect on Co-Defendants,” “Maximum Sentence and Length of Time Served,” “Prior Record,” “Trial Considerations,” and “Victim’s Input.” A written statement of reasons containing an account of all factors considered and deemed applicable must be submitted with the motion for waiver.

In connection with an attack on Omar Estrada, juveniles V.A., M.R., and C.T., all sixteen years old or older, were charged with offenses enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26. The State filed waiver motions for the juveniles and submitted a statement of reasons for each juvenile. The statements were virtually identical to one another with the exception of their prior records. For nature of the offense, the State described all participants’ actions in one narrative, providing considerable detail about the juveniles’ actions leading up to, during, and after the assault. In addressing deterrence, the State provided: “The need to deter the juvenile and others from engaging in this sort of activity is abundantly clear.” Regarding the effect that waiver will have on co-defendants, the State asserted that defendants should be tried together in adult court “[i]n the interests of judicial efficacy and parity in sentencing.” For the maximum sentence factor, the State noted that each youth would face a maximum of ten years if adjudicated as a juvenile and forty years, subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), if convicted as an adult. The juveniles’ prior records were recounted in individualized fashion and, for trial considerations, the State provided that there is a strong likelihood of indictment and conviction, and noted the seriousness of the crime committed and the need for adequate punishment. Finally, the prosecutor stated for each juvenile that the “[victim supports this application.”

The Family Court determined that probable cause existed for enumerated offenses charged but concluded that the prosecutor’s decision to waive the juveniles constituted a patent and gross abuse of discretion. The court therefore denied the State’s motions for waiver. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the State’s decision to seek waiver did not constitute a patent and gross abuse of discretion. State ex rel. V.A., 420 N.J. Super. 302 (App. Div. 2011). The panel remanded for the entry of orders waiving V.A., M.R., and C.T. to adult court. The Court granted V.A., M.R., and C.T. leave to appeal. 208 N.J. 334 (2011); 208 N.J. 384 (2011).

HELD: The abuse of discretion standard, rather than the patent and gross abuse of discretion standard, governs judicial review of a prosecutor’s decision to waive a juvenile aged sixteen and over charged with an enumerated offense under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26 into adult criminal court.

1. Shortly after the 2000 amendments to the juvenile waiver statute, in State ex rel. R.C., 351 N.J. Super. 248 (App. Div. 2002), the Appellate Division concluded that the patent and gross abuse of discretion standard applicable to a prosecutor’s refusal to consent to a defendant’s admission into a Pretrial Intervention (PTI) program also governs the review of a prosecutor’s motion to waive a sixteen-year-old juvenile charged with an enumerated offense into adult court. The Court has not squarely addressed this question.  

2. Although generous deference must be allotted to prosecutors in light of the 2000 amendments, the Court has embraced the abuse of discretion standard as a generous deference to prosecutorial actions. The Court has applied the abuse of discretion standard when the prosecutorial determination visits on the individual a harsher set of circumstances, rather than the denial or conferral of a benefit. The latter circumstance is what is at stake in the PTI context. More fundamentally, however, the charging process generally, and at work in a PTI determination, is an inherently prosecutorial function and is the reason for greater deference. In the circumstances presented here, without the prosecutor’s motion to the juvenile court, the juvenile remains in that venue for any charges that are brought.

3. The discretionary prosecutorial decision at issue here places the juvenile at risk of enhanced punishment. In State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20 (1992), the Court applied an abuse of discretion standard to a prosecutor’s discretionary decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence. In light of the enhanced punishment looming as a result of the prosecutor’s waiver decision here, the Court finds that the abuse of discretion standard utilized in Lagares is more appropriate. Lagares imposed a “heavy” abuse of discretion standard to be carried by a defendant seeking to avoid a prosecutor’s application for an extended term made in compliance with guidelines issued. Here, the Court imposes a similar abuse of discretion standard to be met when the family court reviews the prosecutor’s waiver decision made in connection with the juvenile waiver Guidelines. As in Lagares, a juvenile must show clearly and convincingly that a prosecutor abused his or her discretion in order to secure relief. An abuse of discretion review does not allow the court to substitute its judgment for the prosecutor’s; it is appropriately deferential to the prosecutor’s decision to seek waiver while furthering the goal of uniform application by providing an additional level of protection against arbitrariness in a critical decision affecting the quantity and quality of punishment for a juvenile.

4. To ensure a meaningful review under the abuse of discretion standard, the prosecutor’s statement of reasons must evidence that the prosecutor actually considered each Guideline factor for each particular juvenile. The prosecutor’s statement of reasons must provide enough of a fact-based explanation to support the conclusion that the factor supports waiver. Cursory or conclusory statements as justification for waiver will not suffice to allow the court to perform its review because such statements provide no meaningful explanation of the prosecutor’s reasoning. Here, the statements of reasons sufficiently explained the nature of the offenses; presented sufficient individualized information about the youths’ past records; and provided minimal but nonetheless individualized information on the effect on co-defendants, maximum sentence, trial considerations, and victim’s input. However, the State’s explanations on deterrence are clearly deficient to permit review. The deterrence factor was addressed with a curt statement, announced in conclusory fashion, that “[t]he need to deter the juvenile and others from engaging in this sort of activity is abundantly clear.” That explanation failed to explain how deterrence of the particular individual, and of others generally, is served by waiving each of these juveniles to adult criminal proceedings. Therefore, the statements of reasons require a more full explanation of the deterrence assessment of the three juveniles.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed in respect of the standard of review to be applied and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

See also Trying juveniles as adults will become tougher, N.J. Supreme Court ruleshttp://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/09/trying_juveniles_as_adults_wil.html— Prosecutors must meet a tougher test before they can try juveniles as adults, giving younger offenders more power to avoid being sent to prison, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

In a 3-2 decision, the court also said prosecutors must explain why trying a juvenile as an adult would better deter that person, as well as others, from committing future crimes.

Juvenile justice advocates hailed the decision as an acknowledgement of the negative consequences of putting young offenders in prison with adult criminals.

They said imprisoning young people as adults creates a permanent criminal record, which makes it difficult for offenders to get a job or take out a loan. The advocates also said juveniles in adult facilities are more likely to commit suicide or be physically and sexually abused.

Attorney Laura Cohen, who joined the case on behalf of more than two dozen state and national advocacy organizations and individuals, said the ruling was "enormous."

"They have to take a hard look at the young person and ask, ‘We know in most cases transfer to the adult system won’t deter future crime, but will it deter in this case?’" Cohen said.

The state Attorney General’s Office, which supported the Middlesex Prosecutor’s Office’s contention that four juveniles deserved to be tried as adults because of the severity of their crimes, said the ruling would not prevent prosecutors from successfully making such requests in the future.

"The court provides some clear direction on what detail should be included in a waiver application," said spokesman Peter Aseltine. "We anticipate that prosecutors will not have any problem complying with this decision and obtaining waivers where appropriate."

Writing for the majority, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia said given the consequences of adult prosecutions, juveniles need only prove prosecutors abused their discretion when they ask to waive a case to adult court, rather than prove a "patent and gross" abuse of discretion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Anne Patterson said the Legislature in 2000 granted prosecutors broad discretion over when to transfer a juvenile case, and guidelines by the Attorney General’s Office were enough to prevent arbitrary decisions.

In the case, three juveniles aged 16 and older challenged a lower court decision granting the Middlesex County prosecutor’s request to try them as adults on charges of aggravated assault, robbery and conspiracy. A fourth juvenile was involved in the case but was not a party on appeal.

The juveniles were charged in connection with a 2009 attack on Omar Estrada, who was walking in Woodbridge Township when he was struck in the back of the head from behind, kicked and robbed.

If convicted as juveniles, the teenagers face a maximum 10 years in juvenile detention. If convicted as adults, they face a maximum 40 years in state prison.

When prosecutors ask to send criminal cases against juveniles age 16 and older to adult court, they must address several factors, including the nature of the offenses, how the move would help deter future offenses and the maximum possible adult sentence.

The Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office argued "the need to deter the juvenile(s) and others from engaging in this sort of activity is abundantly clear." The trial court rejected the request based on a report that juveniles sent to adult court were more likely to commit violent crimes. A state appeals court reversed that decision, but the Supreme Court said the prosecution’s explanation was inadequate.

The case was sent to the trial court to allow the prosecutors to expand upon their request to try the juveniles as adults. Middlesex County Prosecutor Bruce Kaplan said in a statement he will provide a more complete explanation. "Even under this new, increased level of court review, our previous statement of reasons pursuant to Attorney General guidelines was found sufficient in all other respects," Kaplan said.

Courts across the country are grappling with questions about how to handle juvenile offenders. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court banned states from imposing mandatory life sentences on juveniles. Lon Taylor, an assistant deputy public defender who represented one of the juveniles, said the New Jersey decision was a "dramatic change" to the juvenile justice system.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/09/trying_juveniles_as_adults_wil.html