On January 13, 2021, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Somerset County case of State v. Walter Tormasi. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:44 concerned the constitutionality of a juvenile’s life sentence with 30 years of parole ineligibility. Judge Geiger...
Juvenile Delinquency
Juveniles and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (Part 6)
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The Family Part judge’s credibility assessment and core factual findings -- that D.M. “exposed his penis to Z.Y., sought Z.Y. to touch his penis with his mouth, and had his penis physically touch Z.Y.’s...
Juveniles and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (Part 5)
Justice Patterson continued in relevant part as follows: There is no evidence in the endangering statute’s plain language that the Legislature intended to incorporate the penetration or age-disparity elements of the sexual assault statute, or the force or coercion...
Juveniles and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (Part 4)
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: The panel should have granted the State’s unopposed motion for oral argument, and the Court cautions appellate courts in similar settings involving expanded issues to seriously consider granting motions for oral...
Juveniles and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (Part 3)
Justice Patterson continued in relevant part: The panel reversed D.M.’s delinquency adjudication, based on its resolution of the question it had raised sua sponte. Id. at 426-28. The panel acknowledged that “sexual conduct,” which would impair or debauch the morals of...
Juveniles and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (Part 2)
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: In a written decision, the court made detailed credibility findings. The court found that the State failed to prove sexual penetration and accordingly declined to adjudicate D.M. delinquent on the charge of...
Juveniles and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (Part 1)
On May 14, 2019, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Union County case of State in the interest of D.M. The principal issue involved the circumstances under which an endangering the welfare of a child charge could apply to a juvenile defendant. Justice Patterson...
Constitutionality of Lifetime Parole Supervision for Juvenile Sex Offenders (Part 5)
Nevertheless, C.K. remains a sex-offender registrant. That tainted status has permeated various spheres of his life -- professional, personal, and social. He often feels isolated and depressed. He has turned down opportunities for professional advancement for fear...
Constitutionality of Lifetime Parole Supervision for Juvenile Sex Offenders (Part 4)
The Court continued: Subsection (g) has the perverse effect of keeping on the sex-offender registry those juveniles who have completed their rehabilitation, not reoffended, and who can prove after a fifteen-year look-back period that they are not likely to pose a...
Constitutionality of Lifetime Parole Supervision for Juvenile Sex Offenders (Part 3)
Justice Albin continued: Even a lifetime presumption with a twenty-five-year look-back period has been found violative of some states' constitutions. New Jersey's lifetime presumption of dangerousness that attaches to juvenile sex offenders pursuant to N.J.S.A....
