The Court granted the State’s petition for certification. 231 N.J. 553 (2017). Although the Legislature may decide that N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1) should not apply in juvenile proceedings based on conduct such as that at issue here, nothing in the current text of that statute precludes the adjudication in this case. The Court declines to rewrite the statute’s plain language in this appeal. However, the Family Part court’s adjudication must be reversed because the court’s disavowal, at the disposition hearing, of critical aspects of its previously-stated factual findings undermined its determination as to both offenses. In this extraordinary setting, it is unclear whether the State met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D.M. violated N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court affirms on other grounds the panel’s judgment.
Here, the juvenile-defendant is benefitting from the extraordinary combination of errors made by the trial judge. Many juveniles in similar circumstances end up serving time in a juvenile detention facility and being forced to register as sex offenders. Here, he ends up with outright acquittals despite the trial judge’s recognition that a first-degree aggravated sexual assault was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.