NJ Court Reverses PTI Admission, Orders State to Justify Rejection

State of New Jersey v. M.K.H.

Docket No. A-3656-22

Decided December 12, 2024

Submitted by New Jersey Sex Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark

In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided the State’s appeal from a trial court order reversing the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office’s (MCPO) rejection of defendant into the Pre-Trial Intervention program (PTI).

In June 2022, defendant was charged with third-degree endangering the welfare of a child for possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM), in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(b)5(b)(iii). Defendant had allegedly sent two images of CSAM to another individual over Snapchat, including a video of a thirteen-year-old masturbating, and possessing over eighteen images of CSAM on various applications on his electronic devices.

In August 2022, defendant pled guilty to the sole count in the indictment. The State did not request defendant to be placed on Megan’s Law, parole supervision for life, nor pay mandatory fines and penalties. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the State recommended probation, conditioned on an Avenel evaluation, no unsupervised contact with children under the age of eighteen, and internet usage restrictions.

Defendant had applied for admission to the Monmouth County PTI program and the PTI director approved the application, but the State rejected the defendant’s admission for reasons expressed in a letter memorandum. The State relied on factors one, two, three, seven, eight, and seventeen in denying defendant admission into PTI under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12e. The State described the seriousness of the facts underlying defendant’s criminal conduct — possessing child CSAM and actively seeking to exchange it with other application users for “shock value” and the “approval” of likeminded individuals — was “particularly disturbing,” and presented a need for prosecution “to ensure deterrence from future criminal activity.” The State also relied upon a prior incident with law enforcement in 2019, when defendant allegedly attempted to solicit nude pictures for his male high school classmates by posing as a female. The State also considered mitigating information supplied by the defendant in its rejection memorandum. Defendant then appealed the State’s rejection to the Law Division.

After hearing oral argument on defendant’s appeal, the trial court issued a written opinion and order granting the appeal, reversing the prosecutor’s rejection and admitting defendant into PTI. The trial court found that the State did not consider all relevant factors and the decision rejecting defendant from PTI represented a clear error in judgment. The trial court further found the State’s reliance on the 2019 incident to establish a pattern of anti-social behavior under factor N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e)(8) was erroneous because defendant did not actually admit guilt, but instead just “took the blame” to “get it over with.” The court also found the State had discounted defendant’s young age of nineteen; that he dropped out of school for bullying due to the 2019 incident; that defendant had self-reported childhood sexual and physical abuse to the PTI investigator; defendant had a special education status years earlier in high school; and he had blamed his viewing of CSAM on his isolation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, the trial court concluded that State’s error in judgment subverted the goals of PTI adding the error was a patent and gross abuse of discretion because defendant had remained arrest-free during the pendency of his criminal prosecution and had taken measures to rehabilitate himself following his arrest. The State subsequently appealed.

Ultimately, the Appellate Court determined that a remand to the prosecutor for an opportunity to reconsider and resubmit the reasons for its rejection of defendant, excluding any evidence obtained from the prior investigation when defendant was a juvenile and no charges were filed, is warranted under these circumstances. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s decision concerning its reversal of the State’s decision to reject defendant’s application for PTI and its order summarily admitting defendant into the PTI program. The court concluded that the trial court’s determination that the State’s reasons for rejection was a patent and gross abuse of discretion without first remanding the matter to the State to reconsider and resubmit its reasons for rejection was a misapplication of its discretion. The Appellate Court also noted that the trial court should take into consideration established legal principles which require the State’s reasons for rejecting defendant’s PTI application must be afforded “broad discretion” which can only be overcome by defendant satisfying his enhanced burden to clearly and convincingly demonstrate the State’s decision was a patent and gross abuse of discretion.

At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions to appeal the denial of PTI admission. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.

We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.