Ron Mills v. State of New Jersey, Department of the Treasury , 435 N.J. Super. 69 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3234-12T3
RON MILLS, WILLIAM BAYLOCK,
DAWONE BAYLOCK, ANTHONY CENTENO,
DAVID JOHNSON, JHERELLE BAILEY
a/k/a KAMAL J. BAILEY, BRYHEEM
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
FRAIZER, DERRICK BROWN, GILBERT
BECERRA, March 13, 2014
Plaintiffs, APPELLATE DIVISION
and
DAYNA HINTON, ALBERT CASS,
ROBERT HENDERSON, ANTWYNE ROLAX,
Plaintiffs-Respondents,
v.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________
Argued October 17, 2013 – Decided March 13, 2014
Before Judges Waugh, Nugent, and Accurso.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket
No. L-3321-11.
Peter Slocum, Deputy Attorney General,
argued the cause for appellant (John J.
Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney;
Christopher S. Porrino and Melissa H. Raksa,
Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel; Mr.
Slocum, on the brief).
Kenneth D. Aita argued the cause for
respondents.
Benjamin Yaster argued the cause for amicus
curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New
Jersey (Gibbons P.C., attorneys; Mr. Yaster
and Lawrence S. Lustberg, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WAUGH, J.A.D.
Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendant State of
New Jersey, Department of the Treasury (State), in July 2011 to
recover damages for wrongful conviction and incarceration as
provided by the Mistaken Imprisonment Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 52:4C-
1 to -6.1 Following motion practice described in more detail
below, the claims of all plaintiffs except Dayna Hinton, Albert
Cass, Robert Henderson, and Antwyne Rolax were dismissed.
By leave granted, the State appeals the Law Division's
January 31, 2013 order (1) denying its motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that their
complaint was unverified, (2) denying its motion for summary
1
The Act was amended in December 2013. The amendments are
applicable only to individuals released from prison or pardoned
on or after December 27, 2013. N.J.S.A. 52:4C-7. Unless
otherwise indicated, references and citations to the Act are to
the pre-amendment version, which governs the disposition of this
appeal.
2 A-3234-12T3
judgment as to Hinton, Cass, Henderson, and Rolax on the theory
that their claims were statutorily barred because their
convictions resulted from guilty pleas,2 and (3) granting those
plaintiffs' motion to file a verified amended complaint after
the statutory time to sue had expired. We affirm in part and
reverse in part.
I.
We discern the following facts and procedural history from
the record on appeal.
In 2010, after an investigation by the United States
Department of Justice, five members of the City of Camden's
Police Department were indicted and charged with conspiracy to
deprive criminal defendants of their constitutional rights.
Following the indictment, the Camden County Prosecutor
voluntarily dismissed charges against approximately 200 criminal
defendants, including the plaintiffs in this action. Although
some of those criminal defendants had been the subject of the
specific cases that gave rise to the federal indictment, others
were defendants who had been charged as the result of
investigations in which the indicted officers participated.
Plaintiffs were in the latter group.
2
The motion judge granted summary judgment as to the other nine
plaintiffs for reasons not relevant to this appeal.
3 A-3234-12T3
Hinton was arrested in September 2007. She pled guilty to
possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to
distribute on November 14, 2007, and was released from custody
that day. Hinton was subsequently sentenced to probation for
five years. Hinton's conviction was vacated on March 10, 2010.
Cass was arrested in December 2007 for unlawful possession
of a weapon. He pled guilty in October 2008. He was
subsequently sentenced to five years in prison, with a two year
period of parole ineligibility. Cass's conviction was vacated
on February 7, 2010, and he was released from prison on March 8.
Henderson was arrested for possession of a controlled
dangerous substance in August 2008. He pled guilty on May 26,
2009, and was sentenced to three years in prison, with twenty-
seven months of parole ineligibility. Henderson's conviction
was vacated on March 10, 2010, and he was released from prison
on March 18.
Rolax was arrested in December 2007 for possession of
marijuana with intent to distribute. He pled guilty on November
12, 2008, and was released. He was subsequently sentenced to
probation. In April 2009, he was sentenced to five years in
prison for violation of that probation. His conviction for the
underlying offense was vacated on December 18, 2010. He was
released from prison on January 7, 2011.
4 A-3234-12T3
Over eighty of the defendants whose charges had been
dismissed by the prosecutor sought damages for wrongful arrest
and incarceration in the Law Division, federal court, or both.
The thirteen plaintiffs in this action filed their complaint in
the Law Division on July 1, 2011. On September 6, 2012, the
State filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, among other
things, that a plaintiff's guilty plea absolutely precludes
recovery under the "own-conduct" bar found in N.J.S.A. 52:4C-
3(c).3 The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU)
was granted leave to appear as amicus curiae with respect to the
issue of whether a guilty plea bars recovery under the Act.
On November 15, the day before oral argument of the State's
summary judgment motion, the deputy attorney general assigned to
the case wrote to the motion judge and requested an adjournment
because he had just discovered that the complaint had not been
verified by plaintiffs, as required by N.J.S.A. 52:4C-4. He
asserted that their failure to verify the complaint raised an
issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The judge
adjourned oral argument to allow the State to file a motion to
3
The State filed similar motions in the other cases pending in
Camden County, which had been assigned to different judges.
Prior to oral argument, at the State's suggestion, all of the
cases were reassigned to the judge handling this case, who then
stayed the other cases pending the disposition of the State's
motion for summary judgment in this case.
5 A-3234-12T3
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He also
allowed plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend the
complaint to add the required verifications.
The judge heard and decided the original and supplemental
motions on December 21. He denied the State's motion to dismiss
and granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to add their
verifications. The judge granted the State's motion for summary
judgment as to nine of the thirteen plaintiffs for reasons not
related to this appeal. However, he denied the motion as to
Hinton, Cass, Henderson, and Rolax, having concluded that a
guilty plea was not a per se bar to recovery under the Act. The
implementing order was signed on January 31, 2013.
We granted the State's motion for leave to appeal. We
subsequently stayed all of the related cases pending disposition
of this appeal.
II.
The State argues that, because N.J.S.A. 52:4C-4 requires a
verified complaint, the motion judge lacked subject matter
jurisdiction to allow the remaining plaintiffs to file a
verified amended complaint after the two-year limitations period
had expired. It also argues that, because the convictions of
the four remaining plaintiffs resulted from guilty pleas, they
are barred from recovery under the "own-conduct" bar found in
6 A-3234-12T3
N.J.S.A. 52:4C-3(c) as a matter of law.4 Our review of the
motion judge's determination of the legal issues is plenary.
Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369,
385 (2010).
A.
We turn first to the State's argument that the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not
contain the required verifications when it was filed and could
not be amended to add them after the limitations period had
lapsed.
The State concedes that it did not discover the rather
obvious fact that the complaint was not verified until the eve
of oral argument on its initial motion for summary judgment.
That was well over a year after the complaint was filed. Had
the State raised the issue in a timely manner, as required by
Rule 4:6-1 and -2,5 Cass, Henderson, and Rolax would have been
able to amend the complaint to add the required verifications
prior to the expiration of the limitation period established by
4
The State asks us to decide the second issue even if we agree
that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. The ACLU joins in
that request.
5
The record does not reflect whether the State ever filed an
answer. Plaintiffs assert that the State initially agreed to
mediate the dispute, an assertion the State has not challenged.
7 A-3234-12T3
N.J.S.A. 52:4C-4. The two-year limitation period had already
expired as to Hinton by the time the complaint was filed.
As soon as the State raised the verification issue,
plaintiffs sought leave to amend the complaint to correct the
error and comply with N.J.S.A. 52:4C-4. Rule 4:9-1 permits a
party to amend a pleading through "leave of court which shall be
freely given in the interest of justice." "Whenever the claim
or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the
conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth or attempted to be
set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back
to the date of the original pleading." R. 4:9-3.
The State argues that Rule 4:9-3 is inapplicable here
because the unverified complaint never gave the court subject
matter jurisdiction in the first place. Citing National State
Bank of Elizabeth v. Gonzalez, 266 N.J. Super. 614, 618 (App.
Div. 1993) ("courts generally employ strict construction in
favor of the sovereign so as not to enlarge the scope of the
waiver beyond what the language requires."), appeal dismissed,
137 N.J. 304 (1994), the State argues that, because the Act
constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, the requirement that
the complaint be verified must be strictly construed and viewed
as jurisdictional. Consequently, the State argues, the
unverified complaint never invoked the court's subject matter
8 A-3234-12T3
jurisdiction and the opportunity to correct the error was
irrevocably lost when the two-year limitation period ended.
As the Supreme Court held in State v. Hudson, 209 N.J. 513,
529 (2012), a court's "overriding goal is to determine as best
we can the intent of the Legislature, and to give effect to that
intent." Consequently, we review the State's arguments on this
issue in the context of the Legislature's stated purpose for
creating the remedies embodied in the Act.
The Legislature finds and declares that
innocent persons who have been wrongly
convicted of crimes and subsequently
imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking
legal redress due to a variety of
substantive and technical obstacles in the
law and that such persons should have an
available avenue of redress over and above
the existing tort remedies to seek
compensation for damages. The Legislature
intends by enactment of the provisions of
this act that those innocent persons who can
demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence
that they were unjustly convicted and
imprisoned be able to recover damages
against the State.
[N.J.S.A. 52:4C-1 (1997), amended by L.
2013, c. 171, § 1.]
While we agree that the Act is, in part, a waiver of
sovereign immunity, the language of N.J.S.A. 52:4C-1 also makes
it clear that the Act is remedial legislation intended to
facilitate the claims of "innocent persons who have been wrongly
convicted of crimes and subsequently imprisoned" by according
9 A-3234-12T3
them remedies "over and above" those already existing, such as
claims under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to
12-3, or the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2.
As a result, the Act is entitled to a more liberal
interpretation than might ordinarily be the case. See Green v.
Morgan Props., 215 N.J. 431, 447 (2013).
One of the stated purposes of the Act was to help claimants
overcome "a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in
the law" that had "frustrated" their efforts to seek legal
redress. While that language cannot be read as a license simply
to ignore the pleading requirements of the Act, including the
verification requirement, it prompts us to approach the issue
before us with the Legislature's stated concern about technical
obstacles firmly in mind.
The State's argument presumes that the filing of a verified
complaint is an absolute prerequisite to subject matter
jurisdiction. However, in General Trading Co. v. Director,
Division of Taxation, 83 N.J. 122, 127-28 (1980) (citation
omitted), the Supreme Court held that
[i]t does not follow . . . that every
procedural omission rises to the level of a
fatal defect in subject matter jurisdiction
regardless of the attendant circumstances .
. . . Rather, a review of the cases
demonstrates this Court's reluctance to
raise a jurisdictional bar where the
omission results from justifiable reliance
10 A-3234-12T3
on prior decisional authority or where the
irregularity may be cured without undue
delay or irreparable harm to the other
party.
It is clear from our review of the record that the State has
suffered no actual prejudice from plaintiffs' failure to verify
their complaint.
As filed, the complaint clearly set forth the facts upon
which plaintiffs' claims were based. In fact, the vast majority
of those facts were already known to the State, which had moved
to vacate the plaintiffs' underlying convictions in the first
place. In addition, the lack of verification did not preclude
the State from making a dispositive motion based upon the facts
set forth in the complaint. Indeed, the verification was
apparently of such little interest to the State that its absence
went undetected for an extended period of time and was only
discovered the day before that dispositive motion was to be
argued. Finally, the defect is easily correctable, at least for
three of the four remaining plaintiffs, by the filing of an
amended complaint with the required verifications. Any delay
was caused by the State's failure to raise the issue in a timely
manner. Consequently, "the irregularity [could have been] cured
without undue delay or irreparable harm to the [State]." For
these reasons, and especially in light of the legislative
purposes outlined above, we conclude that plaintiffs' failure to
11 A-3234-12T3
verify their complaint did not deprive the court of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Even if the verification were jurisdictional, we would
allow the filing of the amended complaint by Cass, Henderson,
and Rolax. In one of our earliest cases, Ciocca v. Hackes, 4
N.J. Super. 28, 33 (App. Div. 1949), we observed that there is
an "ever-broadening policy against the procedural frustration of
just determinations between parties on the ultimate merits."
Under the particular circumstances of this case, we
conclude that the running of the statutory limitations period
was equitably tolled because of the State's unreasonable and
unexplained delay in raising the issue and the absence of
prejudice to the State. We recognize that such equitable relief
is not "applied against the State to the same extent as against
private parties." O'Neill v. State Highway Dep't of N.J., 50
N.J. 307, 319 (1967). If application of such equitable relief
will prejudice essential governmental functions, it will not be
applied. Sellers v. Bd. of the Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys.,
399 N.J. Super. 51, 58 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting Middletown Twp.
PBA Local No. 124 v. Twp. of Middletown, 162 N.J. 361, 367
(2000)). The doctrine can be applied "'in very compelling
circumstances, where the interests of justice, morality and
common fairness dictate that course.'" Ibid. (quoting Maltese v.
12 A-3234-12T3
Twp. of N. Brunswick, 353 N.J. Super. 226, 244-45 (App. Div.
2002)). In our view, this is such a case. To hold otherwise
would result in a "gotcha" type of defense that would be
antithetical to the words and spirit of the remedial legislative
intent embodied in N.J.S.A. 52:4C-1.
Consequently, we find no error in the motion judge's
decision to deny the State's motion to dismiss and to grant
Cass, Henderson, and Rolax leave to amend the complaint to add
the required verifications. As to Hinton, we reverse the denial
of the motion to dismiss because the complaint was untimely as
to her claim when it was first filed.
B.
We now turn to the State's argument that the motion judge
erred by denying its motion for summary judgment against the
remaining defendants, each of whose underlying convictions
resulted from a guilty plea. The judge rejected the State's
argument that a guilty plea is an automatic bar to recovery
under the Act, holding that the issue of whether a guilty plea
precludes recovery is a question for determination by the finder
of fact. Plaintiffs and the ACLU urge us to affirm the judge's
denial of summary judgment.
The Act, as it applies to this case, requires a claimant to
prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following
13 A-3234-12T3
three elements in order to recover the damages allowed by
N.J.S.A. 52:4C-5:
a. That he was convicted of a crime and
subsequently sentenced to a term of
imprisonment, served all or any part of his
sentence; and
b. He did not commit the crime for which he
was convicted; and
c. He did not by his own conduct cause or
bring about his conviction.
[N.J.S.A. 52:4C-3 (1997), amended by L.
2013, c. 171, § 3].
The issue before us is whether a claimant who can satisfy the
requirements of (a) and (b) is, as a matter of law, unable to
satisfy (c) if the underlying conviction resulted from a guilty
plea rather than conviction after a trial.
We start our analysis with the language of the statute
itself, which the Supreme Court has held is "'the best
indicator'" of the intent of the Legislature. Hudson, supra,
209 N.J. at 529 (quoting State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 176
(2010)).
In the construction of the laws and statutes
of this state, both civil and criminal,
words and phrases shall be read and
construed with their context, and shall,
unless inconsistent with the manifest intent
of the legislature or unless another or
different meaning is expressly indicated, be
given their generally accepted meaning,
according to the approved usage of the
language.
14 A-3234-12T3
[N.J.S.A. 1:1-1.]
We will not go beyond the language of the statute if it "leads
to a clearly understood result." Hudson, supra, 209 N.J. at
529. "[E]xtrinsic aids may not be used to create ambiguity when
the plain language of the statute itself answers the
interpretative question;" they are only used if "the statutory
language results in more than one reasonable interpretation."
Ibid.
The State argues that a plain-language reading of the Act,
based on the definitions of the operative terms of subsection
(c) in accordance with Black's Law Dictionary and tort law
concepts, supports its position. Black's defines the noun form
of "conduct" as: "Personal behavior; deportment; mode of action;
any positive or negative act." Black's Law Dictionary 268 (5th
ed. 1979). The verb form of "cause" means: "To be the cause or
occasion of; to effect as an agent; to bring about; to bring
into existence; to make to induce; to compel." Id. at 200. The
meaning of "bring about" is: "To procure; implies completion."
Id. at 174. The State also points to the definition of "cause"
in the context of tort law as: a "substantial factor
contributing to the loss." Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, P.C.,
145 N.J. 395, 419 (1996). Based upon those definitions, the
State argues that a defendant who pleads guilty to an offense of
15 A-3234-12T3
which the defendant is not guilty necessarily "cause[s] or
bring[s] about his conviction" by his own conduct within the
meaning of subsection (c) and is, consequently, absolutely
precluded from pursuing a claim for damages under the Act for
that reason.
The ACLU argues that the State's plain-meaning argument
fails because the operative terms at issue are unclear and
subject to different interpretations. The ACLU points to the
following language from Conklin:
Although it sounds simple, "'causation' is
an inscrutably vague notion, susceptible to
endless philosophical argument, as well as
practical manipulation." Dean Prosser
observed almost fifty years ago[6] that
"'Proximate cause remains a tangle and a
jungle, a palace of mirrors and a maze . . .
[it] covers a multitude of sins . . . [and]
is a complex term of highly uncertain
meaning under which other rules, doctrines
and reasons lie buried.'"
[Id. at 416-417 (alterations in the
original) (citations omitted)].
The gist of the ACLU's argument is that it is not clear whether
the Legislature intended the analysis under subsection (c) to
depend merely on causation-in-fact, in which case it concedes
that there would likely be a bar, or proximate cause, in which
case the ACLU argues that a factfinder would have to determine
6
Now over sixty years ago.
16 A-3234-12T3
the issue. At least initially, that is an issue of law rather
than fact.
Even if we were inclined to agree with the ACLU that the
Act should be interpreted as requiring a claimant to
demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that his conduct
was not a proximate cause of the conviction underlying the
claim, we would not agree that application of the proximate-
cause standard requires adjudication by a finder of fact when a
claimant has pled guilty. Using a modified form of Model Jury
Charge (Civil) § 6.13, the finder of fact in such a case would
apply the following standard:
To find proximate cause, you must first
find that [claimant's guilty plea was a
cause of the conviction]. If you find that
[the plea] is not a cause of the
[conviction], then you must find no
proximate cause.
Second, you must find that [claimant's
guilty plea] was a substantial factor that
singly, or in combination with other causes
[such as the misconduct of the investigating
police officers], brought about the
[conviction]. By substantial, it is meant
that it was not a remote, trivial or
inconsequential cause. The mere circum-
stance that there may also be another cause
of the [conviction] does not mean that there
cannot be a finding of proximate cause. Nor
is it necessary for the [guilty plea] to be
the sole cause of [the conviction].
However, you must find that [claimant's
guilty plea] was a substantial factor in
bringing about the [conviction].
17 A-3234-12T3
Third, you must find that [the
conviction] must have been foreseeable.
. . .
In sum, in order to find proximate
cause, you must find that the [claimant's
guilty plea]] was a substantial factor in
bringing about the [conviction] and that
some harm to [claimant] was foreseeable from
[the guilty plea].
Inasmuch as a guilty plea necessarily results in a conviction
and the defendant is so informed during the plea hearing, we see
no logical argument for the proposition that the guilty plea is
not a proximate cause, or for that matter a cause-in-fact, of
the conviction, even if there were other proximate causes, such
as the fact that the charges resulted from the improper conduct
of the police and the defendant faced a significant period of
incarceration at the time of the plea.
The ACLU argues forcefully and persuasively that defendants
who are not guilty nevertheless enter guilty pleas, often to
accept plea bargains that result in the dismissal of more
serious charges or to avoid a more stringent sentence than they
might otherwise receive if they went to trial. However, our
Supreme Court has clearly established a strong judicial policy
disapproving such pleas. For that reason, the Court, through
rulemaking and case law, refuses to countenance guilty pleas
unless the defendant provides a factual basis for the plea.
Rule 3:9-2 provides, in relevant part, as follows:
18 A-3234-12T3
The court, in its discretion, may refuse to
accept a plea of guilty and shall not accept
such plea without first questioning the
defendant personally, under oath or by
affirmation, and determining by inquiry of
the defendant and others, in the court's
discretion, that there is a factual basis
for the plea and that the plea is made
voluntarily, not as a result of any threats
or of any promises or inducements not
disclosed on the record, and with an
understanding of the nature of the charge
and the consequences of the plea. In
addition to its inquiry of the defendant,
the court may accept a written stipulation
of facts, opinion, or state of mind that the
defendant admits to be true, provided the
stipulation is signed by the defendant,
defense counsel, and the prosecutor.
In State v. Smullen, 118 N.J. 408, 414-15 (1990), the Court
emphasized that it has "been very sensitive to the requirement
that there be an adequate factual basis for a plea of criminal
guilt" and that "[e]ven if a defendant wished to plead guilty to
a crime he or she did not commit, he or she may not do so. No
court may accept such a plea."
More recently, in State v. Taccetta, 200 N.J. 183, 195
(2009), the Court observed that "[t]he notion that a defendant
can enter a plea of guilty, while maintaining his innocence, is
foreign to our state jurisprudence." The Court rejected the
argument that a defense attorney provided constitutionally
ineffective assistance to a criminal defendant by failing to
advise the defendant that he should plead guilty, despite his
19 A-3234-12T3
claims of innocence, to accept a favorable plea bargain. Id. at
198. The Court observed that it is
mindful that our system of justice is not
perfect and that, at times, an accused,
without the knowledge of the court, may
enter a plea of guilty to a crime he did not
commit to insulate himself from a
potentially greater sentence if found guilty
by a jury. That is something over which we
have no control. It is another thing,
however, for a court to say it is acceptable
for a defendant to give a perjured plea.
Our court rules and case law require a
factual basis for a plea of guilty, that is,
a truthful account of what actually occurred
to justify the acceptance of a plea. That
approach in the long-run is the best means
of ensuring that innocent people are not
punished for crimes they did not commit. It
is an approach that is essential to the very
integrity of our criminal justice system.
Just because we are powerless to
control or eliminate every negative practice
in our criminal justice system does not mean
that we must condone those practices.
Though we recognize that sometimes an
accused, unknown to the trial judge, will
perjure himself to put through a plea
agreement, a court cannot give official
license to such a practice. Yet, that is
precisely what happened in this case. The
PCR [post-conviction relief] judge found
that, had defendant been given the
opportunity, he would have perjured himself
at the plea hearing, and an unwitting court
would have accepted the plea offer. On that
basis, the PCR judge vacated a jury verdict
that was the result of a fair trial. That
result is antithetical to our court rules,
case law, and the administration of justice
and, therefore, we must reject it.
[Ibid.].
20 A-3234-12T3
It could be argued that the Legislature might nevertheless
have taken a different view, consistent with the underlying
remedial purposes of the Act, and that it did not intend to
exclude recovery by innocent defendants who had pled guilty.
However, we find nothing in the Act's legislative history or the
wording of N.J.S.A. 52:4C-3 to suggest that the Legislature
intended to do so.
Although the Act has a remedial purpose, the Legislature
nevertheless set a higher threshold for recovery under the Act
by requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence, rather than
the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard generally applicable
in tort actions. There is no suggestion in the legislative
history or the wording of the statute to support the argument
that, despite its use of the phrase "by his own conduct cause or
bring about his conviction," the Legislature intended to exclude
a guilty plea from the application of the broadly worded bar to
recovery found in subsection (c). Had the Legislature intended
to exempt a claimant's guilty plea from the otherwise broad
wording of the own-conduct bar, it could easily have done so or,
at the very least, stated that intent somewhere in the
legislative history.
We conclude, based upon the reasons outlined above, that
the plain meaning of the statutory language requires application
21 A-3234-12T3
of the own-conduct bar to a guilty plea as a matter of law.
Consequently, we reverse the motion judge's order to the
contrary.
C.
In summary, we affirm the order on appeal to the extent it
denied the State's motion to dismiss the claims of Cass,
Henderson, and Rolax for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
but reverse as to Hinton.7 We also reverse the order as to the
denial of the State's motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
7
Hinton's claim would, in any event, be subject to dismissal
under the Act's own-conduct bar.
22 A-3234-12T3
____________________________________
ACCURSO, J.A.D., concurring.
I join in the judgment of the majority that plaintiffs'
claims under the Mistaken Imprisonment Act are barred by their
guilty pleas. Because that holding is dispositive of each claim
before us, I would not address the State's motion to dismiss for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on plaintiffs' failure
to comply with the Act's verification requirement. See In re
Contest of the Nov. 8, 2005 Gen. Election for Office of Mayor of
Twp. of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 192 N.J. 546, 560 (2007)
(explaining that although election laws are liberally construed,
"a complete failure to comply with the verification requirement"
of the election contest statute would not be condoned).
A-3234-12T3