On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, FJ-12-002795-04-M.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Lefelt, Parrillo and Sapp-Peterson.
R.O., a juvenile born on September 15, 1990, appeals from an adjudication of delinquency for committing an act which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted fourth-degree possession of a weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have while in or upon any school building. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(e)(2). We affirm.
The adjudication arose out of an incident that occurred at R.O.'s middle school when school officials learned that R.O. was in possession of a knife. R.O. told school officials he had found the knife on the school bus. However, he did not turn in the knife until after he was confronted by school officials.
On appeal, R.O. presents the following arguments:
TRIAL OF THE JUVENILE WITHOUT ACCESS TO WITNESSES VIOLATED THE JUVENILE'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS, COMPULSORY PROCESS, EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND A FAIR TRIAL.
RESTRICTION OF THE ABILITY OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO CROSS[-]EXAMINE THE STATE WITNESS CONSTITUTED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRING[E]MENT ON THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT A WITNESS IN VIOLATION OF THE JUVENILE'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
THE COURT ERRED TO EXCLUDE THE MEMORANDUM DATED JUNE 16, 2004 FROM EVIDENCE.
THE COURT ERRED TO DENY DEFENSE MOTION TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF THE SO-CALLED INFORMER.
THE LOWER COURT'S STATED NEED FOR "FINALITY" WAS AN IMPROPER JUSTIFICATION TO DENY DEFENSE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF ATTENDANCE LOGS RELATING TO DE AND THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO ...