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.

Juvenile Offender Will Be Treated Differently Under NJ Senate Bill 2003

In a move to promote rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, juveniles may receive additional protection from facing trial as adults if New Jersey Senate Bill 2003 (S2003) is passed. The bill pertains to how juveniles facing criminal offenses may be tried, held before and after trial and the level of representation required in hearings to move juvenile matters to the Criminal Part of the Superior Court. Presently, juveniles age 14 and over may be tried as adults. S2003 would raise the minimum age at which a juvenile could be tried as an adult to 15. S2003 would permit juvenile to be tried as adults only for the most serious offenses including criminal homicide; strict liability for drug induced deaths; first-degree robbery; carjacking; sexual assault; second-degree aggravated assault; kidnapping; aggravated arson; certain gang criminality; a crime committed at a time when the juvenile had previously been adjudicated delinquent or confined to an adult correctional facility; violent, aggressive, and willful crimes against another; unlawful possession of a firearm, destructive device or other prohibited weapon; arson; death by auto if the juvenile was operating the vehicle under the influence of an intoxicating liquor, narcotic, hallucinogenic or habit producing drug (DUI); a violation of N.J.S.2C:35-3, N.J.S.2C:35-4, or N.J.S.2C:35-5; a conspiracy which is a part of a continuing criminal activity and the circumstances of the crimes show the juvenile has knowingly devoted himself to criminal activity as a source of livelihood; an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of certain enumerated acts; theft of an automobile; serious computer criminal activity; distribution of any controlled dangerous substance or controlled substance analog while on any property used for school purposes, or within 1,000 feet of such school property. The State would bear the burden of proving that the nature and circumstances of the charge or the prior record of the juvenile are sufficiently serious that the interests of the public require waiver. Juvenile cases are typically heard in Family Court and, under S2003, they would be entitled to counsel, either private or appointed, during all hearings relating to the transfer of their individual case from the Family Part to the Criminal Part. S2003 would require a prosecutor seeking to move a juvenile matter to the Criminal Part to provide written notice to the Family Part judge setting forth the reasons the transfer is being sought. Additionally, the Family Part judge would be required to undertake their own analysis and then accept or reject the prosecutor’s motion. Juveniles age 14 and over may now be housed with adults but S2003 would prohibit juveniles under 18 from being incarcerated in adult jails or prisons rather than the current limit of 16 years old. At present, juveniles may be placed in solitary confinement for not more than ten days per month. As the concept behind S2003 is rehabilitation first and foremost, solitary confinement of juveniles would be a measure of last resort and heavily restricted. If all other avenues are exhausted and the juvenile remains a threat to facility security or others solitary confinement may be utilized for no more than two consecutive days for juveniles who are 15 years of age, three consecutive days for juveniles ages 16 and 17 and up to a maximum of five days for juveniles age 18 and over. In further accord with the goal of rehabilitation, academic instruction and academic counseling, vocational education, post-secondary educational opportunities, alcohol and narcotics treatment programs, mental health services, medical and dental care, regular contact with the family members, work programs to prepare the juvenile for treatment, re-entry services, and any other services or assistance reasonably related to the rehabilitation of the juvenile shall be provided as appropriate. S2003 is sponsored by Democrats and received no support from the Republican party. The bill passed the Senate and is presently in the Assembly for consideration and revision. If you are a juvenile facing criminal charges your future is at stake and should not be left to chance. Your future and freedom may depend on the outcome of your case making it imperative that you seek experienced defense counsel immediately. For more information about juvenile offenses including drug charges, possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) in a school zone, assault, sex crimes, school issues, breaking and entering, gang related crimes, burglary or other serious matters visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Accused Sex-Offender Gets New Trial After Court Error

David Bueso was charged with first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(1)); second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2b); and third-degree endangering the welfare of a minor (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a.1) for crimes committed against M.C. when she was approximately four or five years old. Bueso lived with his girlfriend, Lucero, and her mother, Amparo, who babysat M.C. in their residence and the alleged touching occurred in the residence. M.C. told her mother that Busero touched her vagina with his hand and mouth and M.C.'s mother contacted the Union County Prosecutor's Office. M.C. testified that the acts took place in the defendant's bedroom when Lucero was out of the residence. Lucero and Amparo indicated that M.C. was never alone with the defendant and they had never seen any inappropriate behavior by Bueso toward M.C. At trial, in State v. Bueso, Bueso offered exculpatory evidence and the prosecution had no concrete medical evidence of sexual acts against M.C. Additionally, M.C. offered conflicting statements as to the number of times and the dates upon which the alleged acts occurred and the jury found the defendant guilty as to alleged acts on one occasion but innocent of alleged acts on another occasion and the court sentenced Bueso to a 15-year prison term subject to the No Early Release Act (N.E.R.A) (N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). Bueso appealed and the NJ Appellate division held that the plain error standard of State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534, 541 (2004) applied and that the court's error in failing to inquire sufficiently into the competence of M.C. to testify must be disregarded "unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. Pursuant to State v. G.C., 188 N.J. 118, 131 (2006), a witness must understand the nature of an oath and have sufficient capacity to recollect and communicate with respect the matters about which they are providing testimony. State v. Zamorsky, 159 N.J. super 273, 280 (App. Div. 1978) established the elements a trial judge should use to determine competency of children as witnesses as "exploring the child's conceptual awareness of truth and falsehood" and then determining "whether the child understands the duty to tell the truth." The Appellate Division held that the trial in the Superior Court of New Jersey- Law Division, Union County's failure to make sufficient inquiry into M.C. competency was plain error and required a new trial. 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.

Judge's Finding Against Civil Commitment Of A Sex-Offender Is Reversed

C.H. is a rapist with a history of sex crime convictions for acts committed from 1978 through 2005 against women ages 17 to 36. C.H. also has a history of convictions for drug offenses, robbery, receiving stolen property and theft, parole violations and failure to register as a sex offender. As a result of his previous post-release behaviors and prior pleas and guilty verdicts including sexual assault, attempted criminal sexual contact, terroristic threats, assault, criminal sexual assault, criminal restraint, criminal attempt and rape the State petitioned, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, for the civil commitment of C.H. pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA)(N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38) upon his scheduled release from the Special Treatment Unit (STU). In May 2012, two State psychiatrists both found that C.H. fit the criteria for civil commitment under the SVPA due to his inability to control his own sexually violent behavior, likelihood of reoffending and danger to the public as set forth in In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2009) and In re Civil Commitment of A.H.B., 386 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div. 2006). The State’s burden of proof in seeking civil commitment is clear and convincing evidence pursuant to In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. Super. 599 (App. Div. 2003). During a commitment hearing, C.H.’s psychiatrist contended that C.H. was not “highly likely” to reoffend if released. Although the judge held that C.H. suffered from paraphilia, antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and polysubstance abuse and there was a risk that C.H. would reoffend, the judge held that the State had not met its burden of proof. In re the Civil Commitment of C.H. resulted in the State’s appeal of the judge’s finding with regard to C.H.’s likelihood of reoffending. Pursuant to In re Civil Commitment of T.J.N., 390 N.J. Super. 218, 225 (App. Div. 2007) a trial court’s order of commitment under the SVPA will be reversed only for “an abuse of discretion or lack of evidence to support it.” Under In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31 (1996) the record must be reviewed to determine whether the judge’s decision reflected the evidence presented and findings set forth by the experts for both sides collectively where the factfinder would not have sufficient knowledge to make an informed decision without reference to expert opinions. Reasoning that the judge’s failure to find a risk of re-offense in light of evidence and expert opinions presented was a “mistaken exercise in discretion” the N.J. Appellate Division reversed the matter with direction to the trial judge to more fully review the record with regard to the issues presented at future review hearings regarding the commitment of C.H. If you are facing sex crime charges the consequences are severe including potential registry as a sex-offender under Megan's Law, the stigma associated with sexual assault perpetrators, prison and possibly civil commitment. If you are charged with a sex crime, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, internet crimes, solicitation of a minor, endangering the welfare of a minor or other sex crimes in NJ visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only 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.

Sex Offender's Have Right to Self-Representation In Civil Commitment Proceedings

Although civil commitment proceedings for sex offenders who have completed their prison sentences are civil rather than criminal in nature, the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27 to -27.38, dictates that counsel will be provided for such hearings. D.Y. is a 52 year old male with a history of sexual assaults against minors. In 1986, D.Y. was indicted for first-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1)); second-degree sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)) and third-degree endangering the welfare of a minor (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)) based on allegations by D.Y.’s 12 year old nephew, C.Y., against D.Y. Ultimately D.Y. received a 5 year sentence in exchange for a plea to second-degree sexual assault against C.Y. In 1994, after his release, D.Y. befriended 12 year old A.B. who later alleged D.Y. had sexually abused him by engaging in touching, oral and anal sex and the display of child pornography to A.B. by D.Y. as well as videotaping sexual acts between A.B. and D.Y. As a result of A.B.’s allegations, D.Y. was charged with first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1)), second-degree sexual contact (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b)), and third-degree impairing the morals of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)). Upon entering a guilty plea to first-degree aggravated sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1)) in 1999 he received an 18 year prison sentence with a 6 year period of parole ineligibility at the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center at Avenel (ADTC). Additionally, charges were levied by federal authorities and D.Y. was sentenced to 137 months of incarceration. In 2008, D.Y. completed his period of incarceration and a decision as to the civil commitment of D.Y. was required in order to protect the public if D.Y. was still considered a danger to children. In In the Matter of Civil Commitment of D.Y., 426, N.J. Super. 436 (App. Div. 2012), ___ N.J. ___(2014) the N.J. Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Division’s ruling and upheld D.Y.’s right to represent himself at his civil commitment hearing, as long as standby counsel was available at all times to facilitate as necessary for D.Y. The ruling was based on the long-standing right to self-representation dating back to 13th century English law. Although the right to self-representation exists, Justice Patterson writing for the Court included that self-representation “seldom proves to be a sound strategic choice.” If you are facing charges for sex offenses, you should obtain experienced criminal defense counsel immediately. For more information about sexual assault, rape, statutory rape, endangering the welfare of a minor, child pornography or other sex crimes in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

First or Second Degree Sexual Assault Conviction Turns On "Severe Personal Injury" To Victim

In 2005, O.M., a 32 year old woman, first disclosed that she was sexually abused by her stepfather, R.P. when she was a child. R.P. was convicted of first-degree aggravated sexual assault by committing an act of sexual penetration with O.M. when she was at least 13 but less than 16 and related to O.M. by affinity (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(2)(a)) and defendant stood in loco parentis within O.M.'s residence (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(2)(c)); first-degree aggravated sexual assault by commission of an act of sexual penetration with O.M. while using physical force or coercion, and O.M. received severe personal injury (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(6)) and second-degree aggravated sexual assault by committing an act of sexual penetration with O.M. while she was at least 16 but less than 18 (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(3)). An additional count of first-degree aggravated sexual assault by committing an act of sexual penetration on a minor under thirteen (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1)) was dismissed. Upon conviction, R.P. received two concurrent 18 year prison terms with a 9 year period of parole ineligibility and a concurrent 8 year prison term with a 4 year parole disqualifier. O.M. testified that R.P. began molesting her when she was 12 years old, initially by performing oral sex on her or penetrating her digitally. Later, the abuse by R.P. progressed to sexual intercourse without condoms with physical force over O.M.'s objections. The regular assaults resulted in 2 pregnancies when O.M. was age 16 and the first prior to her attaining age 16. The earlier pregnancy was terminated by abortion and O.M. gave birth to the second. The NJ Appellate Division held that, although substantial time had elapsed there was substantial evidence upon which a determination of guilt could be made. Where the Appellate Division found issue with the trial court's finding was in regard to failure to charge the jury on sexual assault as a lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault. In State v. Ramsey, 415, N.J. Super 257, 266 (App.Div. 2010) the court held "improper instructions on material issues are presumed to constitute reversible error" in criminal trials. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(6) an act of sexual penetration on another using physical force or coercion in which the victim sustains "severe personal injury" constitutes first-degree aggravated sexual assault. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1) an act of sexual penetration on another using physical force or coercion without "severe personal injury" to the victim constitutes second-degree sexual assault. Other than the "severe personal injury" the elements of these two offenses are the same and the trial court's failure to charge the jury on the lesser-included offense is plain error which could have produced an unjust result. No court in New Jersey has held an unwanted pregnancy to constitute severe personal injury and the question of severe personal injury would then be left to a jury on a case by case basis. Commission of a sexual offense can be discovered many years after the incident or incident and can result in 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 sex crimes, internet crimes, child pornography, rape, endangering the welfare of a minor or other criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Additional Charge In Sexual Assault On Minor Does Not Always Mean More Time

Although he did not escape guilt, the defendant did receive a reduced sentence for charges of first degree aggravated assault, second degree sexual assault and second degree endangering the welfare of a minor in State v. W.L. Following a jury trial, the defendant was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with an 85 percent period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, for the crime of 1st degree sexual assault into which the crime of 2nd degree sexual assault was merged. The defendant was also sentenced to 7 years for endangering the welfare of a minor to be served consecutively to the 15 years for the other charge. When sentencing, a Judge may count aggravating factors only once and must apply a Yarbough analysis when imposing an excessive sentence. The judge in State v. W.L. applied aggravating factors 2 (gravity of the offense), 3 (risk defendant will commit another offense) and 9 (the need to deter such activity) and mitigating factors 7 (defendant's lack of criminal history) and 8 (the likelihood the defendant's behavior will recur). An essential element of the conviction for aggravated sexual assault was the child's age and finding of an aggravating sentencing factor cannot be based solely on an essential element of the crime charged. Additionally, the sentencing Judge failed to apply the appropriate standards from State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-644 (1985) in determining whether to impose a consecutive sentence for count 3, endangering the welfare of a minor. If you are facing charges for sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a minor or similar charges, you should consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately. If you are convicted or plea to a sex crime in New Jersey, in addition to incarceration you face lifelong listing on a registry which can affect your ability to obtain employment, restrict where you may reside and generally have a negative impact on the remainder of your life. For more information about soliciting a minor, statutory rape, child molestation, internet crimes, child pornography or other sex crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

NJ Legislature Proposes Residential Restrictions on Sex Offenders

A newly proposed bill that is currently being sent to the New Jersey State Senate could have a possible impact on sex offenders throughout the state. The bill, named S-570 would give power to municipalities to enact restrictions on where registered sex offenders would be able to reside, excluding them from areas such as kindergartens or parks. At present, municipalities throughout the state of New Jersey are not permitted to enact restrictions on the proximity of sex offenders to certain areas due to the lack of uniformity it may cause from town to town. If the bill being proposed by the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee, uniformity will be taking a back seat to safety. Discussion of restricting the residency and location of sex offenders throughout the state has been taking place since the inception of Megan’s law in 1994. Megan’s law, also known as the Sex Offender Act of 1994 on the national level, was created to require the registration of sex offenders as well as notification of all residents when a sex offender moves into their neighborhood. These laws on both our state and national levels have created a sense of security for many citizens who now feel as though they have more information needed to help keep their children safe from potential danger. Bill S-570 would create the addition to Megan’s law that many residents have been calling for from its inception. If approved, the bill would provide that registered sex offenders be at least five hundred feet away from prescribed locations set by each municipality such as schools, parks and kindergartens. It would be up to each municipality to set boundaries within their town, however the municipality would have to follow the model set out by the state. The bill is currently being sent to the New Jersey State Senate for a vote. A conviction or a plea for sex crimes in NJ will have a serious impact on your life ranging from restrictions on residence, lack of acceptance in society, lack of employment opportunities, incarceration and even permanent confinement to a treatment facility. If you are charged with sexual assault, possession of child pornography, molestation, endangering the welfare of a minor, solicitation of a minor, rape, statutory rape or other sex crimes you should seek an experienced defense attorney immediately to protect your rights. For more information regarding sex crimes or other criminal matters in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes and is not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.