On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Warren County, No. W-2006-000102-2113.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 30, 2008
Before Judges Wefing and Lyons.
The State of New Jersey, through the Warren County Prosecutor, appeals from a trial court order directing that defendant be admitted into the Warren County Pretrial Intervention Program ("PTI"). After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we reverse.
Defendant, her husband, and their three children were camping on the weekend of August 27, 2006, in Knowlton Township. Defendant and her husband got into an argument when he returned late for dinner. In the course of the argument, she stabbed him in the arm. He left, taking their daughter and the family dog with him. Later that evening New Jersey State Troopers Robertson and Rubino, while patrolling on Route 287 southbound, came upon a car pulled off on the shoulder, with no warning lights. They approached the car and found defendant's husband at the wheel. They detected an odor of alcohol and noted that his shorts and sweatshirt were soaked in blood. He related the earlier incident with his wife. He said that as he was driving, he felt lightheaded and had pulled over. One of the troopers spoke with the ten-year-old girl in the car; she also related the circumstances of her parents' dispute and defendant stabbing her father. She identified a knife on the dashboard as the weapon defendant had used.
He was taken to the hospital to have his injuries treated. Several stitches were required to close his wound. He was advised of his right to seek a restraining order, but he declined to do so.
Police were dispatched to the campsite and located defendant with the couple's two younger children. They detected a strong odor of alcohol on her breath. They advised her of her Miranda rights, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and she provided a statement in which she recited that the couple had gotten into an argument when her husband was not on time for dinner. She said he had grabbed her by the neck; no visible signs of injury could be seen. She admitted she stabbed him with the knife, intending to hurt him but did not intend to cause serious injury. She said she had discarded the knife in the campfire. The police retrieved a knife blade from the ashes.
Defendant was charged with aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2), a crime of the third degree; possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d), a crime of the third degree; and possession of a weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful use, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d), a crime of the fourth degree. Her husband was charged with simple assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a). The record before us does not reveal the disposition of that charge.
Defendant applied for admission into PTI and was rejected. The rejection notice cited four factors: the assaultive nature of the offense, the conclusion she would not benefit from supervisory treatment, that she had been charged with an offense carrying a presumption of imprisonment and had not shown compelling reasons to justify her admission or that rejection would be arbitrary and unreasonable, and that PTI is designed primarily for "victimless" crimes.
Defendant appealed to the trial court. She contended she had demonstrated that she was amenable to correction, that her husband did not want her to be prosecuted and that the benefits to be obtained by her admission outweighed any need for prosecution. The trial court remanded the matter to the Warren County Prosecutor for reconsideration. In its statement of reasons, the trial court noted that the decision whether to admit an applicant to PTI required consideration of a number of factors beyond the nature of the offense itself.
In response, the Prosecutor submitted a detailed statement of reasons why, in his judgment, the great majority of the seventeen factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e) weighed against admitting defendant into PTI. These included not only the violent nature of the offense, but such additional items as defendant's failure to provide documentation to support her assertions that she was engaged in alcohol rehabilitation treatment and that continuing the matter in the criminal justice system would jeopardize her position as a trading assistant on Wall Street. It also noted that it did not ascribe any weight to her husband's desire to forego criminal prosecution in light of the fact that it is not unusual for victims of domestic violence not to want to move the case forward; the Prosecutor considered it important to hold accountable those who commit domestic violence to reduce the possibility of a repetition. It stated that the close supervision available through probation could more effectively address defendant's admitted alcoholism than could PTI. It also noted that the supervision available through probation would provide a better vehicle than PTI to address defendant's perceived problems with anger management. It noted only two factors that weighed affirmatively in favor of admitting defendant into PTI, her lack of any prior involvement with the criminal justice system and the absence of any involvement of organized crime. Attached to the brief was a certification from a senior probation officer that defendant had informed her that she was engaged in an intensive outpatient treatment program for her alcoholism but that the program had informed the officer that defendant had ceased her participation without explanation and had thus been discharged.
Defendant again appealed to the trial court. As part of her appeal she submitted a certification about her efforts to treat her alcohol addiction. She did not attach to that certification any documentation supporting her assertions.
After argument, the trial court entered the order that is on appeal. It attached to that order a detailed statement of its reasons, reviewing the various factors and the respective positions of the parties as to how each should be weighed in the deliberative process. It concluded that the State's rejection of defendant was a patent and gross abuse of discretion; it characterized the reasons as "fictitious" and "not valid based on the record." The trial court specifically criticized the Prosecutor's reference to defendant having a problem with anger management and "continuing anti-social ...