STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. IMANI WILLIAMS(W-2017-000508-317, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: September 29, 2017
• Docket: A-4417-16T6
• Status: Published

Opinion

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4417-16T6

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION Plaintiff-Appellant, September 29, 2017 v. APPELLATE DIVISION

IMANI WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Respondent. _____________________________

Argued September 14, 2017 - Decided September 29, 2017

Before Judges Alvarez, Currier, and Geiger.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Warrant No. W-2017-000508-317.

Jennifer B. Paszkiewicz, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Scott A. Coffina, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Paszkiewicz, of counsel and on the brief).

Philip G. Pagano, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Jared Dorfman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

CURRIER, J.A.D.

In this appeal, we address whether, in a pretrial detention

hearing, defendant's pregnancy should be given greater consideration than any other pretrial detention factor in a

judge's assessment under the Criminal Justice Reform Act (Act),

N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15 to -26. Because we conclude that the trial

judge abused his discretion in giving defendant's pregnancy

greater weight than all other pertinent factors in his

determination to release her, we reverse. Pregnancy, like any

other medical condition, is only considered for its impact on

the risk of a defendant posing a danger to the community,

obstructing justice or failing to appear in court. N.J.S.A.

2A:162-20.

In June 2017, defendant was charged with second-degree

robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a)(1); second-degree aggravated

assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); and disorderly persons theft by

unlawful taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a). The victim of the crimes

told police that defendant and another person had "jumped" her

from behind and thrown her to the ground. She was punched and

kicked in the head, face, and body while on the ground,

resulting in several shattered teeth as well as swelling and

bruising to her eyes and face. Money was stolen from her purse.

On the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), N.J.S.A. 2A:162-25,

the Pretrial Services Program rated defendant a six for new

criminal activity and a five for failure to appear. It also

flagged defendant for an elevated risk of violence. The

2 A-4417-16T6 recommendation was that defendant remain in custody pending

trial.

The State filed a notice for pretrial detention, N.J.S.A.

2A:162-19(a), and a hearing was conducted on June 13, 2017. In

support of its request that defendant be detained pending trial,

the State noted defendant's extensive juvenile history,

including several violations of probation, two pending

disorderly persons charges, and a 2016 disorderly persons

conviction for assault by auto resulting in a sixty-day period

of incarceration. Defendant failed to appear for court six

times within the previous two years.

Defense counsel informed the court that defendant had a

full-time job and had recently learned that she was eight weeks

pregnant. He requested she be released under condition of in-

person reporting. Counsel argued that defendant's "employment

as well as her pregnancy would assure both her appearance in

court as well as the safety of the community."

After the judge found the State had established probable

cause, he turned to the request for detention pending trial.

The judge explained that he had reviewed the PSA and its

recommendation, and acknowledged the serious second-degree

charges and defendant's multiple prior failures to appear. The

judge further stated that he was familiar with defendant's

3 A-4417-16T6 extensive juvenile history,1 having served as the county's

juvenile judge during the pertinent timeframe. Nevertheless,

the judge determined that the State's proofs fell "just slightly

below clear and convincing evidence" because the PSA did not

take into account that defendant was eight weeks pregnant or

that her pregnancy "present[ed] issues with regard to care in a

correctional facility." The judge concluded that defendant's

pregnancy required the denial of the State's motion for pretrial

detention.

The judge explained that he would

impose some very strict pretrial release provisions in light of the fact that the State was just a tad short of clear and convincing evidence and [that his decision] was impacted by [defendant's] pregnancy . . . and the issues that would pose to the correctional facility and correctional staff in terms of . . . prenatal care.

He warned defendant that pregnancy was "a card that [she could]

play once" and if she committed a new offense or violated a

condition of her release, whether she was "eight weeks pregnant,

six months pregnant, eight months pregnant, it [would] not make

any difference whatsoever and the [c]ourt [would] evaluate the

facts independent[ly] at that time."

1 Defendant was twenty years old at the time of the detention hearing.

4 A-4417-16T6 As conditions of release, the judge required defendant to

report in-person weekly to pretrial services. The judge also

imposed a curfew from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. daily, permitting

defendant to leave her residence only to go to work and prenatal

appointments.2

The court granted the State's request for a stay of

defendant's release pending appeal. In discussing the

application for a stay, the judge commented:

in light of the [PSA] and the history of [defendant] who is only 20 but who had an extensive juvenile history, that . . . the State was very close to establishing by clear and convincing evidence . . . that [defendant] should be detained, but . . . the court believes that . . . [defendant's pregnancy] justified her release on conditions . . . .

The judge further remarked:

but for the pregnancy, . . . the [c]ourt would have detained [defendant]. Her scores were . . . extremely high on the [PSA]. She has a significant history for a person who is 20 years old. . . . [A]ll of the necessary indicia were there which the [c]ourt felt were . . . mitigated by . . . the fact that [defendant] is . . . eight weeks pregnant.

2 Neither defendant nor her counsel made any representation that she had seen a doctor for her pregnancy or was receiving prenatal care.

5 A-4417-16T6 We granted the State leave to appeal the trial court's

order on an emergent basis to review the question: whether

defendant's pregnancy is a medical condition sufficient to

override all other applicable factors, thus requiring pretrial

release. The State argues that the trial court abused its

discretion in denying pretrial detention by according undue

weight to defendant's pregnancy, and speculating that

defendant's medical needs could not be met while in jail. We

agree.

The Act took effect on January 1, 2017. It is premised on

"pretrial release by non-monetary means to reasonably assure" that a defendant will "appear[] in court when required," will not endanger "the safety of any other person or the community," and "will not obstruct or attempt to obstruct the criminal justice process." If a court finds by clear and convincing evidence that "no condition or combination of conditions" would achieve those goals, the court, upon motion by the prosecutor, may order that a defendant be held pending trial.

[State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44, 55 (2017) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:162-15)].

Under Section 18 of the Act, the trial court is authorized

to order pretrial detention if it finds by clear and convincing

evidence that no conditions of release would reasonably assure a

defendant's appearance in court, the safety of the community,

and the integrity of the criminal justice process. N.J.S.A.

6 A-4417-16T6 2A:162-18(a). At the hearing itself, "the court may take into

account" the following:

a. The nature and circumstances of the offense charged;

b. The weight of the evidence against the eligible defendant, except that the court may consider the admissibility of any evidence sought to be excluded;

c. The history and characteristics of the eligible defendant, including:

(1) the eligible defendant's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and

(2) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the eligible defendant was on probation, parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under federal law, or the law of this or any other state;

d. The nature and seriousness of the danger to any other person or the community that would be posed by the eligible defendant's release, if applicable;

e. The nature and seriousness of the risk of obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process that would be posed

7 A-4417-16T6 by the eligible defendant's release, if applicable; and

f. The release recommendation of the pretrial services program obtained using a risk assessment instrument under [N.J.S.A. 2A:162-25].

[N.J.S.A. 2A:162-20].

Although the trial judge here properly considered several

of the listed applicable factors, he elevated defendant's

medical condition of pregnancy above all of the other pertinent

factors, based on his unfounded speculation that her pregnancy

might cause "issues" to the correctional facility.3 The judge

determined that defendant's pregnancy compelled her release. We

disagree. In determining whether pretrial detention is

appropriate, the trial court should consider all of the

applicable factors noted in the statute, giving appropriate

weight to each.

We do not suggest that there will never be circumstances

under which a defendant's pregnancy could be a determining

factor in a judicial decision regarding pretrial detention. A

trial court could conclude that pregnancy, like any other

medical condition, may require a defendant's release as the

3 We note that N.J.A.C. 10A:31-13.10 requires county correctional facilities to promptly provide pregnant inmates with medical services, including prenatal evaluation and care, obstetrical services, and postpartum and follow-up medical care.

8 A-4417-16T6 condition itself might affect the risk of the defendant posing a

danger to the community, obstructing justice or failing to

appear in court. See N.J.S.A. 2A:162-20. Here, however, there

is no indication that defendant's pregnancy was classified as

high risk or presented any unusual medical complications

requiring specialized treatment. Nor is there any indication

that the jail was unable to provide appropriate prenatal medical

care to defendant. The reasons given by the trial judge for

defendant's pregnancy warranting her release were speculative,

unsupported by any facts in the record, and, therefore,

irrelevant to a pretrial detention determination.

In its orders denying the State's motion for pretrial

detention, the trial court did not explain in writing its

reasons for deviating from the recommendation in the PSA. In

State v. C.W., 449 N.J. Super. 231, 263 (App. Div. 2017), we

stated that N.J.S.A. 2A:162-23(a)(2) requires a court to

"explain in writing specifically why it deviated from the [PSA]

recommendation advising against [a] defendant's release." While

ordinarily we would remand the matter to the trial court for

compliance with the statute, we sufficiently understand the

reasons for the denial of detention. The trial judge was

thorough and candid in stating his reasoning for ordering

defendant's release contrary to the PSA recommendation, and,

9 A-4417-16T6 thus, a remand would be an unnecessary use of stretched

resources.

In giving undue weight to defendant's pregnancy over all

other applicable factors, and failing to consider what import

the pregnancy might have on her risk of posing a danger to the

community, obstructing justice or failing to appear in court,

the judge abused his discretion. See C.W., supra, 449 N.J.

Super. at 255. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's decision

and remand for entry of an order of pretrial detention.

Reversed.

10 A-4417-16T6