Docket No. A-3394-22
Decided August 8, 2024
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided M.G.’s, a juvenile, appeal from her trial adjudication of delinquency for aggravated assault as an accomplice in an altercation at her high school.
The fight giving rise to M.G.’s prosecution occurred on January 18, 2023. M.G. was in the girls’ restroom at her school along with other students standing outside of the stall where the victim, M.R., was located. Two of the girls were angry because they could not use the “big stall” M.R. was using. One of the females, N.L, climbed on top of a sink and into the big stall. Once inside, she began attacking M.R. Eventually, the fight spilled out into the main area of the restroom. N.L. got on top of M.R. and hit her. While N.L. was on top of M.R., another female, S.M., went over and kicked M.R. At some point during the fight, M.R. was able to get on top of N.L. At that time, M.G. pushed M.R. off N.L., telling M.R. something along the lines of “get off of her. Stop. Get off. Get off. You’re not choking her.” As a result of M.G.’s physical intervention, N.L. was able to get back on top of M.R. and continue to assault her. Eventually, the fight moved into the hallway. During the fight, N.L. slammed M.R.’s head against the bathroom stall door, the bathroom wall, and against lockers in the hallway. N.L. also repeatedly punched M.R. in the face, in her back, and pulled M.R.’s hair. S.M., M.C., and M.G. recorded the altercation on their smartphones. S.M.’s recordings were introduced into evidence.
On February 2, 2023, M.G. was charged by a juvenile delinquency complaint with an offense that, if committed by an adult, would constitute third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(7). M.G. plead not guilty and the court conducted a bench trial on May 16, 2023. M.G. testified in her own defense. She claimed N.L. and M.R. were arguing before she entered the bathroom and that she did not know what the argument was about. She also claimed that she was not friendly with either N.L. or M.R. and stated that she did not hit, strike, or choke, anyone during the fight. On cross-examination, M.G. stated that she had no reason to get involved in the fight. She remained in the restroom throughout the altercation “because I was already in a video and I wanted to take a video as transparency to any school official who asked me what had happened in the bathroom.” M.G. further testified that although she wanted the fight because they were hurting each other, she admitted that she did not get a teacher. She also admitted that she did not say anything while N.L. picked M.R. up by her hair and slammed her against the bathroom wall. She also testified that she did not tell N.L. to stop because “she wasn’t thinking clearly in that moment.”
On June 13, 2023, the Family Part entered an order adjudicating her delinquent and imposed disposition. The trial judge found the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that M.G. aided and abetted the assault against M.R. The court also rejected the defense contention that M.G. was a “Good Samaritan.” M.G. subsequently appealed.
On appeal, M.G. contended that the prosecutor failed to prove the culpable mental state needed to establish accomplice liability, and that the victim’s injuries did not rise to the level of “significant bodily injury” as to warrant an adjudication for third-degree aggravated assault. She also argued that the disposition imposed on her adjudication is excessive.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court determined that the trial judge did not err and affirmed M.G.’s conviction. The court articulated that the testimony and video evidence demonstrated that M.G. did not attempt to stop the attacker or seek help from a teacher and pushed the victim at a critical stage in the fight. The court also found the trial judge’s conclusions were supported by credible evidence in the record and determined the violent nature of the assault demonstrated an attempt to cause significant bodily injury. The court also found the trial judge properly balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors in setting a disposition.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to bench trials in the Family Division for Juvenile defendants. 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 M.G. 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.