Juvenile's Excited Utterance Admissible Under Hearsay Exception

State of New Jersey In the Interest of A.R. involved a 14 year old juvenile found guilty of touching a 7 year old child, J.C., sexually on a school bus, a crime that would constitute second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)) if committed by an adult. J.C. was diagnosed with autism and ADHD. Upon exiting the bus, which was returning the children from summer camp, J.C. exclaimed that A.R. had touched him. There were 20 children on the bus and no witnesses to the alleged act. J.C. repeated his statement to a detective days later. The trial judge from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County court found that the exclamation upon exiting the bus and statements during the detective's interview were admissible under the "tender years" exception to the hearsay rule (N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27)). At the bench trial in the, the court found J.C. incompetent to understand the proceedings and offer testimony but did accept J.C.'s testimony based on N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27). On appeal, the N.J. Appellate Division determined that the statements to the detective were testimonial in nature, under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and A.R.'s counsel was not able to protect the confrontational rights of the 14 year old through cross-examination due to the incompetence of J.C. The Appellate Division held that the exclamation upon exiting the bus was not testimonial in nature and remanded for reconsideration. If a juvenile is charged with a crime, the disposition of the charges can change his or her future by prohibiting them from entering certain schools, fields of employment and, in the case of Megan's Law offenses, certain residences or neighborhoods. It is critical for any juvenile charged with a criminal offense to seek an experienced juvenile defense attorney immediately to begin protecting their rights and their future. For more information on juvenile offenses, sex-offenses, Megan's Law provisions or other criminal charges in NJ, visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sex Assault Conviction Overturned Due To Police Officer's Prejudicial Testimony

E.S. was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)); second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 14-2(b)); and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)) based on allegations by his stepdaughter S.W. S.W. was born in 1996 and her mother, N.S, married E.S. in 1998. E.S. and N.S. had children of their own. Living conditions in the family home were beyond crowded and the parents and five children, including S.W., all slept in one bedroom. S.W. complained to her mother in 2008 about multiple touchings by E.S. and when nothing changed, S.W. complained to Aziza Hassan, her teacher. During the interaction with Hassan, S.W. began sobbing in the early morning before school began after Hassan found S.W. waiting in the classroom. Hassan asked S.W. what the problem was and, after S.W. indicated there were problems at home, Hassan asked S.W. if she was raped. Once S.W. indicated to Hassan that S.W. had been raped, Hassan notified the police, DYFS and school authorities. E.S. was arrested after an investigation and sentenced to 12 years in prison with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (N.E.R.A.)(N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2) and a concurrent 6 year term also subject to NERA. In State v. E.S., E.S. appealed based on multiple issues which the court found did not prejudice his rights. The N.J. Appellate Division held that one of the issues raised on appeal by E.S. was valid and had substantial probability of prejudicing the jury. Detective Jennifer Novak of the South River Police Department made multiple statements at trial, in the jury's presence, which supported the credibility of S.W. In particular, Novak indicated her belief of S.W.'s statements and implied that the investigation revealed evidence that the crimes had occurred. Even after the admonishment of the trial judge, Novak continued to make implications about the veracity of S.W. and guilt of E.S. The N.J. Appellate Division heavily weighed the matter of Novak's testimony and sighted to multiple prior decisions regarding the matter. State v. J.Q., 252 N.J. Super. 11 (App. Div. 1991) addressed the issue of witness credibility being a question for the jury. State v. Landeros, 20 N.J. 69, (1955) held that police officers may not offer opinions as to the defendant's culpability when testifying as fact witnesses. Novak's implication that notes written by S.W. in response to Hassan's questioning about the word 'rape' included more inculpatory evidence than they did was contrary to State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263 (1973). The N.J. Appellate Division held that the testimony of Novak could have prejudiced the jury against E.S. and reversed the convictions and remanded to the Law Division for a new trial on all three counts of the indictment. If you are accused of sexual assault or other sex crimes in NJ you are facing very serious penalties including civil commitment, prison and lifetime registry as a sex offender. You need experienced legal counsel to defend you against these charges. For more information about sexual assault, rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, solicitation of a minor, internet crimes or other sex crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Sexual Assault Plea Reversed For Failure To Understand Supervision

William Smullen pled guilty to two counts of second degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c(4))for having sexual intercourse on two separate occasions with a 15 year old female while he was 23 years old. The defendant was sentenced to lifetime supervision under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4 as part of his plea agreement. In addition to federal charges, based on defendant's travel from his home state of New York to have sexual relations with the minor, Smullen was sentenced in New Jersey to 3 years in prison and community supervision for life. Following sentencing in State v. Smullen, the Defedant sought post-conviction relief (PCR) claiming insufficient opportunity to fully understand the scope of community supervision for life in spite of the 10 page document the judge provided him during the plea hearing which summarized lifetime community supervision. Additionally, the Defendant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel as a result of counsel's failure to explain the restrictions Smullen would face in New York under Megan's Law. The PCR court determined that holding the attorney accountable for failure to advise the Defendant of supervision requirements in other states was inappropriate. The Appellate Division held that, as a lifelong resident of New York, the Defendant should have been advised of the applicable provisions of community supervision for live which would be applicable to him as a New York resident and reversed the decision of the PCR court. it was also established at trial that the defense attorney was unaware of the terms of supervision for life in New Jersey as well and asked for additional time to review the provisions but was denied same. The matter was remanded for a determination of whether the Defendant would have pled guilty or exercised his right to a trial if he understood the community supervision provisions of his sentence. If you have been charged with a sex crime a conviction or guilty plea can result in incarceration for a term of years followed by involuntary civil commitment for life. Consequences also include registration as a sex offender and the social stigma you will face forever. It is critical you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately if you are charged with a sex crime. For more information about rape, sexual assault, child molestation, solicitation of a minor or other sex crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Evidence Of Other Man's Semen Admissible In Sexual Assault Case

Bobby Perry was found guilty of second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1)) and third-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(7)). He was sentenced to 8 years with an 85% parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (N.E.R.A., N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2(a)) for the aggravated sexual assault and 4 years imprisonment for the aggravated assault. Additionally, Megan's Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23) was applicable and Perry was sentenced to parole supervision for life. Perry and the victim were drinking together at his residence when he became angry with her and punched her in the mouth and told her to "sit on him". One of the Defendant's roommates returned from a party and he let the victim go. The victim said nothing while the roommate was in the room for some time. After the roommate left the room, the Defendant took the victim downstairs and tried to anally penetrate her, which she resisted, then performed oral sex on her before again trying to orally penetrate her. After this activity, the two returned to a room in the house and sat silently looking at her for some time. The Defendant then asked the victim what she was going to say happened to her face and she agreed to say that someone else had injured her. The victim later went to Maplewood Police Department, accompanied by her ex-boyfriend Mr. Wilkins, and Sergeant Guglielmo, upon seeing her injuries, called for an ambulance. At the hospital, Detective Fuentes of the Union Township Police Department met with the victim to give a statement. On the way to the police station, the victim showed Detective Fuentes where the attack occurred and identified Perry in a photo array. Officers appeared at the residence with a warrant and used a UV light to search for signs of bodily fluids or evidence of clean-up efforts but found nothing in the basement or bathroom and on a later date, the porch where only a small amount of blood was found on the back of a chair. The blood was later matched to the victim and semen was found in her clothing, however, no DNA found matched the Defendant. The Union County Superior Court Judge hearing State v. Perry denied Defendant's application to admit DNA evidence of another man's semen under the Rape Shield Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7) finding that the presence of another man's semen had no bearing on whether consent was given to the Defendant and found the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the prejudice referencing State v. Ryan, 157 N.J. Super. 121 (App. Div. 1978). Perry appealed on the basis that the evidence of other semen could indicate the possibility that the victim claimed she was raped to appease Wilkins, with whom she was in an on again, off again relationship. The Rape Shield Law was intended to protect the privacy of the victim while also ensuring defendants receive a fair trial. State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147 (2003) State v. Budis, 125 N.J. 519 (1991) explained that the Rape Shield Law permits prior sexual history to prove another individual is the source of the semen or to negate force. The NJ Appellate Division determined the evidence of another man's semen in the victims clothes was necessary to put on a full defense as required under State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316 (2005). The probative value of the evidence, presented for the limited purpose of proving the victim was assaulted by Wilkins and lied to the police about who assaulted her, outweighed the potential prejudice. The appellate division reversed Perry's conviction and remanded the matter with the instruction that, should the evidence of another's semen be again proffered in the case, the trial court conduct a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing to determine admissibility of the evidence. If you have been charged with a sex crime you face severe consequences including prison, societal scorn and inclusion on the sex offender registry and possible involuntary civil commitment. It is critical you obtain experienced defense counsel to immediately begin to review the prosecution's, evidence, speak with witnesses, explore alibis you may have and build a defense. For more information about sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, criminal sexual contact, endangering the welfare of a minor and other sex crimes visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

GPS Satellite Monitoring Of Sex-Offenders Retroactive?

NJ awaits the decision of the NJ Supreme Court on whether a state statute requiring GPS monitoring of sex-offenders will have retroactive application to those already released from jail. The main decision point is whether the 2007 Sex Offender Monitoring Act (SOMA) (N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.89 to 123.95) is intended to punish sex offenders, triggering the United States Constitution's ex post facto clause, or it is intended to rehabilitate offenders and protect the public. Riley was originally found guilty of attempted sexual assault committed in 1986 and sentenced to an extended term of 20 years in prison to run consecutive to a sentence he was already serving for a violation of parole. Riley v. State Parole Board began when, upon release from prison in 2009, he was informed by the Parole Board that, as a classified Tier III sex-offender under Megan's Law (N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to 19) with a high risk of re-offense (N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.91(a)(1)), he would be subject to constant GPS monitoring via an ankle bracelet. When wearing the ankle bracelet, a previously convicted sex-offender can move about freely as if without the bracelet, however, "big brother" is constantly watching. This can be likened to parole which is a form of punishment within the criminal justice system. The state's argument is that this form of monitoring is no more restrictive than carrying a cellular phone, with the presumptive reference being the ability to view the location of a cell phone at any time via GPS devices. Certainly there are differences, notably an individual may put their cell phone down anywhere any time and is not tethered to the phone constantly as well as the fact that, although possible, and even legal under certain circumstances, there is not an expectation that police are constantly tracking you by your cell phone. Additionally, although one may leave a cell phone on a charger and go elsewhere while it charges, a convicted sex-offender subject to GPS monitoring must charge the bracelet daily by remaining tethered to an electrical outlet for 2 hours. In Riley, the lower court held that the law is punitive and therefore not retroactively applicable. Upon appeal by the state, the NJ Appellate Division struck down retroactive application of a similar GPS monitoring law as unconstitutional in keeping with Commonwealth v. Cory, 911 N.E.2d 187 (Mass. 2009) and parting with the holdings in Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1 (1995) and Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003) holding sex-offender notification requirements as non-punitive. Commission of a sexual offense can be discovered many years after the incident or incident and can result in incarceration, substantial and irreparable damage to the reputation and lifestyle of the accused in addition to the deprivation of liberty and rights, registration as a sex offender, loss of employment opportunities, possibility of civil commitment and social stigma. If you are accused of a sex crime it is absolutely imperative that you obtain experienced criminal defense counsel to begin working on your defense immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, internet crimes, child pornography or other sex crimes in NJ visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes and not intended to replace the advice of counsel.

How High Should Bail Be To Insure Defendant's Appearance

In State v. Steele, 61 A.3d 174 (2013), Defendant Tyrone Steels appealed from the order of the Passaic County Superior Court denying his motion to reduce bail on two indictments for fourth degree offenses. Bail was set at $150,000, cash only, for 6 counts of lewdness, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-4b(1), and $50,000, no 10% option, for violating a condition of community supervision for life (CSL), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4d for failing to report arrests to his parole officer and refrain from initiating contact with a minor. The Defendant pled guilty to 1st degree kidnapping, robbery and attempted sexual assault under separate indictments from Bergen and Passaic in 1997 and was incarcerated until 2010 when released subject to CSL and Megan's Law. The charges relating to the challenged bails occurred while defendant was on bail for prior violations of CSL. The State's plea offer included recommendations of 2 concurrent 18 month terms for the lewdness charges which would run consecutive to 3 concurrent 18 month charges for the community supervision violations charged. The NJ Appellate Division reviewed the Superior Court Judge's denial of the bail reduction motion and found that the trial court was incorrect in its consideration of the safety of the community when setting the bail amount for the two 4th degree offenses in excess of the $2,500 maximum set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:6-1. In order for bail to have been set at $150,000, cash only, and $50,000 no 10%, there would be a necessary showing that defendant's release on bail constituted a serious threat of destruction of evidence by defendant or danger to witnesses. In spite of the fact that the bail amounts set were excessive, the defendant faced exposure to sentences significantly longer than typical for the underlying offenses and bail in excess of the $2,500 maximum was appropriate and necessary to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. If you are arrested and facing bail, it is critical you secure your release so you can continue to work and can participate in your own defense. However, bail is often high and many are forced to incur financial hardship through non-payment of other expenses to meet bail or pay fees to a bondsman in order to obtain their release. An experienced attorney can often obtain a decrease in your bail amount so you are free to return to your job and family and are better able to assist in your defense. For more information about bail reduction, bail setting or other criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Futuristic Prevention Policy For Sex Offenders

Sex offenders must be sentenced according to statute, just as those found guilty of other crimes. Under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to .38, certain offenders are confined to secure facilities at which they will serve their time, as would anyone convicted of another type of crime. The difference is that these individuals, determined to be sexually violent predators (SVP), will remain in custody upon completion of their sentences. Most people are aware of Megan's Law and the Sex Offender Registry but many are not fully aware of all possible ramifications of conviction, or a guilty plea, for sex offenses. Those considered SVPs under the law and confined for the remainder of their lives have been convicted of violent rape in some cases and downloading child pornography but having no physical contact in other cases. The premise of this lifetime confinement, not simply supervision as most know is a routine result in sex offenses, is that the government is protecting the greater good of society by confining them until they no longer pose a threat. Interestingly, in no other area of the criminal justice system are individuals imprisoned for crimes they might commit in the future. Sex offenses, no matter the crime charged or pled to, bear penalties which will affect you for the rest of your life, even if you reach a plea agreement that may seem favorable at first glance. If you have been charged with a sex crime you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately in order to protect your rights. For more information on criminal law matters, including municipal court matters, in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and in no way intended to replace the advice of an attorney regarding your specific matter.