IN THE MATTER OF THE COMMITMENT OF C.J.(90-11-1427, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3300-15T2
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMITMENT OF C.J.,
_______________________________
Submitted May 23, 2017 – Decided June 13, 2017
Before Judges Rothstadt and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County,
Indictment No. 90-11-1427.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (John V. Molitor, Designated
Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Bergen County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Ian C. Kennedy,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
C.J. appeals from a January 29, 2016 order denying her request
to terminate her Krol1 status. We affirm, substantially for the
reasons stated by Judge Margaret M. Foti in her January 25, 2016
1
See State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236 (1975).
oral decision and in her written amplification, R. 2:5-1(b), dated
April 26, 2016.
We summarize the relevant facts. In 1991, C.J. was found
"not guilty by reason of insanity" and placed on Krol status.
Since 1991, the court has periodically reviewed C.J.'s status.
Judge Foti reviewed C.J.'s Krol status on December 14, 20152 and
January 25, 2016.
Counsel returned to court on January 25, 2016 for C.J.'s
continued Krol review hearing. C.J.'s treating psychiatrist, Dr.
Paul Cusano, testified concerning C.J.'s mental health status.
Neither party objected to Dr. Cusano's qualifications as an expert
in the field of psychiatry. Dr. Cusano told the judge that he had
been treating C.J. since 2002 but added that she had been receiving
mental health services at Vantage Health Systems since 1990.
Dr. Cusano testified that C.J. was diagnosed with chronic
schizophrenia, paranoid type. According to the doctor,
individuals diagnosed with this condition suffer from "ongoing
continuous mental illness where you have persecutory, sometimes
2
At the December 14 review hearing, the court received a brief
letter from C.J.'s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Paul Cusano. Due
to the brevity of the report, coupled with the fact that Dr. Cusano
was not in court to respond to questions regarding C.J.'s mental
condition, the judge adjourned the Krol review hearing to January
25, 2016.
2 A-3300-15T2
grandiose delusions and hallucinations." Dr. Cusano prescribed
an injectable anti-psychotic medication to be administered every
four weeks. He opined that if C.J. was not medication-compliant,
she would "decompensate," and become "hostile," "agitated," and
"paranoid." Dr. Cusano concluded that C.J. should remain on Krol
status, continue her course of treatment with the medication and
receive individual therapy. The doctor suggested that C.J.'s
status be reviewed in one year.
Based on Dr. Cusano's testimony, the judge concluded C.J.
should remain on Krol status, subject to review in one year. In
support of her decision, the judge incorporated her personal
observations of C.J.'s behavior during the hearings including that
she spoke loudly to herself, appeared agitated and had spontaneous
outbursts. The credible testimony of C.J.'s treating
psychiatrist, coupled with the judge's statement that C.J. "can't
sit still for 15 seconds in a courtroom without an outburst," led
the judge to conclude that if C.J. does not remain medication-
compliant, she is a danger to herself and others.
Judge Foti denied C.J.'s request to terminate her Krol status.
The judge found the State met its burden by a preponderance of the
evidence that, absent medication, C.J. remained a danger to herself
and others. The judge ordered C.J. to continue her treatment and
3 A-3300-15T2
medication and scheduled another Krol review hearing for January
2017.
Our review of a Krol order is "extremely narrow, with the
utmost deference accorded the reviewing judge's determination as
to the appropriate accommodation of the competing interests of
individual liberty and societal safety in the particular case."
State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282, 311 (1978). We give great deference
to such determinations and set them aside "only where the record
reveals a clear mistake in the exercise of the reviewing judge's
broad discretion in evaluating the committee's present condition."
Ibid.; see also In re D.C., 146 N.J. 31, 58 (1996)(citing Fields,
supra, 77 N.J. at 311).
Based upon our review of the record, we find that Judge Foti
properly denied C.J.'s request to terminate her Krol status. The
judge made detailed fact-findings and credibility determinations
in her oral and written decisions. The judge emphasized that C.J.
required monthly medication administered by her treating
psychiatrist to treat her mental illness. There is ample support
in the record for the judge's determination that, absent
medication, C.J. would decompensate and become hostile, agitated
and paranoid thus posing a threat of harm to herself and others.
See In re W.K., 159 N.J. 1, 2 (1999).
Affirmed.
4 A-3300-15T2