Decided On March 14, 2025, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Middlesex County case of State v. Thomas Canales. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9 concerned whether the defendant could be tried again after his two trials ended in a hung jury and an appellate reversal due to the improper admission of evidence.
Judge Vanek wrote for the Court in relevant part: Here, we conclude the trial court mistakenly exercised its discretion in dismissing the indictment, finding it would be fundamentally unfair to allow the State to proceed with a third trial against defendant after one mistrial based on jury deadlock and our decision vacating defendant’s conviction predicated on evidentiary error. The State’s substantial evidence and differing proofs on retrial post-remand, coupled with the interests of the victims, their families, and the public in prosecuting the multi-count indictment for an alleged spree of sex offenses, primarily against minors, merits reversal.
Deference to the trial court’s dismissal based on observing the witnesses and hearing the testimony, is not warranted here. The trial judge who dismissed the indictment did not preside over the first two trials, with findings on the Abbati factors based solely on a cold reading of the transcripts. We are unpersuaded the State did not have a strong case based on the evidence to be proffered at a third trial. As the State posited, we found in Canales I that B.V.’s testimony proceeded at the conclusion of the State’s presentation of “substantial” evidence, a fact not considered by the trial court in its written decision. Our prior conclusion as to the State’s substantial evidence, even without B.V.’s testimony, belies the trial court’s finding that the State does not have a strong case on retrial.
The trial court also appears to have mistakenly weighed the proposed identification testimony by H.C.’s father in a third trial against the State, where H.C. contradicted himself in the first and second trials but proffered an explanation to the jury. In addressing his inconsistent testimony, H.C.’s father stated he was nervous and had been afraid to identify defendant in the first trial, but was unable to articulate his fear. H.C.’s father also acknowledged wanting to punish defendant. However, the trial court’s apparent conclusion that at a third trial the testimony of H.C.’s father will negatively impact the strength of the State’s case on the issue of identification is presumptive. That credibility determination is properly left to the jury, considering the cross-examination and any contrary evidence.
We are also unpersuaded by defendant’s reliance on Watson to argue H.C.’s testimony is inadmissible. State v. Watson (2023). The Watson Court held in-court identifications not preceded by a successful out-of-court identification may only be conducted for good reason. H.C.’s father’s testimony was not a “first-time in-court identification” under Watson since, prior to each of the two trials, H.C.’s father identified defendant from a photograph array.
The public’s need to prosecute the indictment outweighs the prejudice to defendant. The allegations of serial sex offenses against defendant are of significant import to multiple victims, their families, and their communities. Deterrence through punishment, if guilt is established, is legislatively mandated under Megan’s Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23, in the public interest.
While we do not minimize defendant’s prior five-year incarceration during the pendency of the proceedings, defendant’s time served would be credited against any sentence he receives as the result of conviction, with the length of pre-trial detention amounting to less than the ten-year maximum sentence for a second-degree crime. Since defendant has been released on Level III pretrial monitoring, our concerns regarding continued incarceration pending trial are ameliorated. Viewed through the lens of prosecutorial deference, the balance of the community’s need to prosecute allegations of serial sex offenses, primarily involving minors, and protection of the interest of victims and their families, against the prejudice to defendant, now released from incarceration, warrants reversal of the dismissal and retrial.
The Court’s analysis feels like the decision is results oriented. Glossing over the specifics of the defendant’s case and focusing on the overall value in prosecuting sex offenses will likely be addressed in a petition for the New Jersey Supreme Court to consider this case.
