State of New Jersey v. Brian S. Edelman ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2042-23
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN S. EDELMAN,
Defendant-Respondent.
_________________________
Submitted October 16, 2024 – Decided October 24, 2024
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment No. 22-08-
1533.
Bradley D. Billhimer, Ocean County Prosecutor,
attorney for appellant (William K. Meighan,
Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
Bio & Laracca, PC, attorneys for respondent
(Sebastian M. Bio, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
The State appeals from a Law Division order directing defendant's
admittance into the Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) over the objection of
the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office (the Prosecutor). Defendant, Brian S.
Edelman, applied for entry into PTI after being indicted for second-degree
burglary and two counts of simple assault. The Prosecutor declined consent,
relying significantly on the victims' objection and defendant's entry into the
victims' home prior to assaulting multiple people in front of young children.
The trial court found the Prosecutor's determination was a patent and gross
abuse of discretion. After our de novo review, we reverse the trial court's
order and remand for further proceedings.
I.
We glean the salient facts from the motion record. On or about
September 4, 2021, multiple Toms River Police Officers responded to a call
for service at a residence and spoke with several victims who reported
defendant had assaulted them.
The victims recounted the incident, reporting defendant had approached
their back door and began screaming at a female in the residence. The female
victim stated defendant struck her in the head while he forced his way into the
residence, injuring her head and right shoulder. Defendant continued into the
A-2042-23
2
home, encountered a male occupant and punched him in the face. During the
continued physical altercation between the two males, defendant accused the
occupants of threatening and insulting his family.
The investigating officers saw signs of injury on both the complaining
occupants. The female victim suffered a right shoulder injury that required
surgery and physical therapy.
Defendant alleged the victims made derogatory comments about his
family. He asserted that when he arrived at the victims' residence, he walked
through the open sliding glass door to speak with the male occupant and a
physical altercation ensued.
On September 9, 2021, defendant was charged with second-degree
burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(b)(1), and two counts of simple assault, N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1(a)(1). Defendant submitted a letter to the Prosecutor in support of his
application to PTI, asserting he was a fifty-five year old college-educated
business owner with no prior criminal history who financially supports his
family.
The Prosecutor declined consent to defendant's PTI admission, since
defendant had entered the victims' home and assaulted multiple people in front
of young children, and the victims objected to his admittance into the program.
A-2042-23
3
In denying consent, the Prosecutor stated defendant's reasons for seeking PTI
were not compelling enough to outweigh the factors disfavoring PTI.
In a supplemental letter, the Prosecutor provided an in-depth analysis of
the seventeen statutory factors 1 governing PTI admission applications and
explained the lack of consent. The Prosecutor found seven factors weighed
against admission, seven factors were inapplicable, and three factors weighed
in favor of admission.
The Prosecutor considered the nature of the offense and the facts of the
case, determining those factors weighed against admission because defendant
was charged with a violent crime. In addition, the Prosecutor considered
whether the criminal act itself resulted in injuries to others, finding this factor
weighed against admission because of the injuries to both victims.
Next, the Prosecutor considered the needs and interests of the victims
and society, determining they weighed against admission because of society's
interest in prosecuting violent offenders and since the victims strongly
opposed defendant's entry into PTI. The Prosecutor then considered whether
the value in supervisory treatment is outweighed by the public need for
prosecution and whether there is harm to society in abandoning criminal
1
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e).
A-2042-23
4
prosecution, finding there is a strong public interest in prosecuting high degree
crimes as the public is entitled to feel safe.
The Prosecutor found three factors weighed in favor of admission.
Specifically, the Prosecutor determined defendant's age and motivation
weighed in favor of admission because he was a fifty-five year old business
owner at the time of the offense and had no prior involvement with law
enforcement. The Prosecutor also considered whether defendant had any
involvement with organized crime, finding the absence of such evidence
weighed in defendant's favor. The Prosecutor found the remaining seven
statutory factors were inapplicable.
Defendant appealed to the Law Division, primarily arguing the State did
not give sufficient weight to the factors in favor of admission and placed too
much weight on the nature and circumstances of the case, the victims' desires,
and the violent nature of the crime. After oral argument, the trial court entered
an order accompanied by a written opinion granting defendant's appeal and
authorized his admittance into PTI.
In so ruling, the trial judge concluded the Prosecutor properly assessed
factors one, two, four, eight, nine, ten, twelve, and sixteen, but found factors
three, seven, eleven, fourteen, and seventeen should have been weighed in
A-2042-23
5
favor of defendant's admission into PTI. The trial court found factor six
should have been considered neutral because there was no evidence supporting
its application. The judge also found the Prosecutor erred in considering
factors thirteen, fifteen, and sixteen as neutral or weighing against admission,
finding they should have been weighed in favor of defendant's application.
The trial court found the Prosecutor did not adequately consider
defendant's statement of compelling reasons and his amenability to
rehabilitation. Ultimately, the judge found there was a "patent and gross abuse
of discretion not only in denying consent to apply to PTI, but in considering
[d]efendant's application" and those errors subverted the purpose of PTI.
The State appealed the trial court's decision.
II.
Deciding whether to permit a defendant to divert to PTI "is a
quintessentially prosecutorial function," State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 582
(1996), for which a prosecutor is "granted broad discretion." State v. K.S., 220
N.J. 190, 199 (2015). It involves the consideration of the non-exhaustive list
of seventeen statutory factors enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e), in order to
"make an individualized assessment of the defendant considering his or her
amenability to correction and potential responsiveness to rehabilitation." State
A-2042-23
6
v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 621-22 (2015) (quoting State v. Watkins, 193 N.J.
507, 520 (2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Rule 3:28-4, in
addition to considering the seventeen individual factors listed in N.J.S.A.
2C:43-12(e), "[t]he nature of the offense should be considered in reviewing the
application" and "[i]f the crime was . . . deliberately committed with violence
or threat of violence against another person[,] . . . the defendant's application
should generally be rejected." R. 3:28-4(b)(1).
Under this statutory and rule-based framework, the scope of our review
of a prosecutor's PTI rejection is severely limited and designed to address
"only the 'most egregious examples of injustice and unfairness.'" State v.
Negran, 178 N.J. 73, 82 (2003) (quoting State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 392
(1977)). Thus, "[i]n order to overturn a prosecutor's rejection, a defendant
must 'clearly and convincingly establish that the prosecutor's decision
constitutes a patent and gross abuse of discretion[,]'" meaning that the decision
"has gone so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI that
fundamental fairness and justice require judicial intervention." Watkins, 193
N.J. at 520 (quoting State v. Watkins, 390 N.J. Super. 302, 305 (App. Div.
2007)); Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582-83.
A-2042-23
7
An abuse of discretion only occurs where clear and convincing evidence
establishes "that the [PTI] denial '(a) was not premised upon a consideration of
all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or
inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment . . . .'" State
v. Lee, 437 N.J. Super. 555, 563 (App. Div. 2014) (quoting State v. Bender, 80
N.J. 84, 93 (1979)). "The extreme deference which a prosecutor's decision is
entitled to in this context translates into a heavy burden which must be borne
by a defendant when seeking to overcome a prosecutorial veto of his [or her]
admission into PTI." State v. Kraft, 265 N.J. Super. 106, 112 (App. Div.
1993).
A prosecutor's consideration of a PTI application must be based on the
criteria set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e), as well as those found in Rule 3:28-
4(b). R. 3:28-4(a). In accordance with Rule 3:28-1(d)(1), a "person who is
charged with a crime, or crimes, for which there is a presumption of
incarceration or a mandatory minimum period of parole ineligibility" is
ineligible for PTI without prosecutorial consent. A defendant charged with a
first- or second-degree crime must also enter a guilty plea to be considered for
PTI admission. R. 3:28-5(b)(2); see also N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(g)(3).
A-2042-23
8
"A trial court does not evaluate a PTI application 'as if it [stands] in the
shoes of the prosecutor.'" State v. Hoffman, 399 N.J. Super. 207, 216 (App.
Div. 2008) (quoting Wallace, 146 N.J. at 589). It is the "fundamental
responsibility" of the prosecutor to decide whom to prosecute, Kraft, 265 N.J.
Super. at 111, and prosecutors have wide latitude in PTI determinations,
Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582; State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 246 (1995).
Guided by these principles, we reverse the trial court's order granting
defendant's appeal and admitting him into PTI over the Prosecutor's objection.
A thorough review of the record shows that the Prosecutor considered,
weighed, and balanced all the requisite factors, including those personal to the
defendant, along with the facts and circumstances of the offense. The
Prosecutor's determination does not amount to a gross or patent abuse of
discretion.
Defendant was charged with second-degree burglary, which carries a
presumption of incarceration and ineligibility for PTI, requiring consent of the
Prosecutor. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(d); R. 3:28-1(d)(1). To overcome this
presumption, "a defendant must demonstrate something extraordinary or
unusual, something 'idiosyncratic,' in his or her background." Nwobu, 139
N.J. at 252. Defendant presented no such evidence in this case.
A-2042-23
9
While defendant is an educated business owner and has family support,
these characteristics are not so unique to overcome the presumption of
ineligibility. Defendant maintains his actions were in retaliation for the
victims having made derogatory comments about his family. There is nothing
in the record evidencing extraordinary or unusual circumstances in defendant's
background to overcome the presumption of ineligibility for PTI.
The legal issue before the trial court was whether the Prosecutor's
decision could not reasonably have been made on a weighing of the relevant
factors. Nwobu, 139 N.J. at 254. "A reviewing court 'does not have the
authority in PTI matters to substitute [its own] discretion for that of the
prosecutor.'" Id. at 253 (alteration in original) (quoting Kraft, 265 N.J. Super.
at 112).
Defendant failed to clearly and convincingly establish the Prosecutor's
decision went so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI,
fundamental fairness and justice, that judicial intervention was required. The
trial court's alternative analysis of the statutory factors does not overcome the
strong presumption in favor of PTI ineligibility. The trial court relied heavily
upon defendant's educational background, along with his status as a business
owner and his family support, but did not elucidate how these characteristics
A-2042-23
10
are so "extraordinary or unusual" to overcome the presumption in favor of
ineligibility. It appears the trial court merely disagreed with the Prosecutor's
reasons for rejecting defendant from PTI, without making a determination that
no reasonable prosecutor could have reached a similar conclusion in weighing
the factors on defendant's PTI application.
The Prosecutor did evaluate the relevant factors and exercised
permissible discretion in refusing to consent to defendant's admission into PTI,
considering the presumption of incarceration presented by the charged
offenses. While it is possible that reasonable minds could differ in analyzing
and balancing the applicable factors in this case, judicial disagreement with a
prosecutor's reasons for rejection, as occurred here, does not equate to patent
and gross abuse of discretion to merit a judicial override.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
A-2042-23
11