Case Title: State of New Jersey v. Robert F. Clark

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-120-98

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). Coleman, J., writing for a unanimous Court. The issues raised in this appeal are whether an attorney who serves as a municipal prosecutor may also represent a defendant in a criminal matter pending in the Superior Court of the county in which the attorney serves as a municipal prosecutor and whether such a scenario calls for the reversal of the conviction of a Superior Court defendant whose attorney was a municipal prosecutor at the time of the representation. In this case, the defendant, Robert F. Clark, was convicted in 1994 on two counts each of sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child. The offenses were committed in Jamesburg and the trial was held in Superior Court, Middlesex County. After entry of the judgment of conviction, Clark learned that the attorney the Public Defender had assigned to represent him had been at the time of trial a part-time municipal prosecutor in New Brunswick, also in Middlesex County. On the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction, Clark argued to the Appellate Division that the dual positions his appointed attorney held in Middlesex County deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial. The parties have agreed that defense counsel was not engaged in an actual conflict of interest. The Appellate Division held that it is impermissible for a part-time municipal prosecutor to represent a criminal defendant in Superior Court in the county where the municipal prosecutor serves and reversed Clark's conviction. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certification and stayed the judgment. HELD: Rule 1.15-13(b) is amended to preclude an attorney who serves as a municipal prosecutor from representing criminal defendants in Superior Court or any municipal court of the county in which the municipal prosecutor serves. At the time of Clark's trial, there was no such prohibition and no actual conflict of interest on the part of defense counsel, so Clark's judgment of conviction is reinstated. 1. When Clark was tried and sentenced and until this decision, Rule 1:15-3(b) of the New Jersey Rules of Court provided that [a] municipal attorney of any municipality shall not represent any defendant in the municipal court thereof. Case law interpreting the rule and its source rule held that a municipal prosecutor was not barred from representing a criminal defendant in the Superior Court of the county in which the attorney served as a municipal prosecutor. Because defense counsel's situation in this case was not an actual conflict of interest, did not prejudice defendant, and violated neither Rule 1:15-3(b) nor case law, there is no ground on which to reverse defendant's conviction and the judgment of conviction is reinstated. (pp. 4-5) 2. Municipal prosecutions have become increasingly complex and important; the benefits of a rule that permits a municipal prosecutor to serve as defense counsel in a proceeding in the Superior Court of the same county are outweighed by the high probability that the prosecutor's impartiality will be undermined. Municipal prosecutors are supervised by the Attorney General and county prosecutors, who prosecute indictable and juvenile offenses in Superior Court. The dual representation at issue presents the significant possibility of a conflict that could impair a defendant's right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel. Rule 1:15-3(b), therefore, is amended to preclude a municipal prosecutor from serving as defense counsel in the same county in which the attorney serves as municipal prosecutor. (pp. 5-8) 4. The amended Rule is effective with the filing of the Court's opinion, but municipal prosecutors may complete their current assignments or terms of office. Municipal prosecutors will not be excused from complying with the amended Rule after December 31, 2000. (p. 10) The judgment of the Appellate Division is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division, as directed by the Appellate Division, for resentencing. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, LONG, and VERNIERO join in JUSTICE COLEMAN'S opinion. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT F. CLARK, Defendant-Respondent. Argued October 12, 1999-- Decided January 19, 2000 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 324 N.J. Super. 178 (1999). Glenn Berman, Middlesex County Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Berman, attorney; Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for respondent (Ivelisse Torres, Public Defender, attorney). Carol M. Henderson, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney). Joan D. Van Pelt, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for amicus curiae Office of the Public Defender (Ivelisse Torres, Public Michael A. Gill submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Atlantic, Burlington and Camden County Municipal Prosecutors Associations (Goldenberg, Mackler, Sayegh & Mintz, attorneys). Matthew S. Rogers and Robert B. Hille submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Bergen County Bar Association (Contant, Scherby & Atkins, attorneys). Dennis Alan Auciello submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Middlesex County Bar Association. Joseph F. DeFino submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Monmouth County Municipal Prosecutors Association (Jacobowitz, Grabelle, DeFino, McGoughran & Latimer, attorneys). Raymond A. Noble and Daniel M. Waldman submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association. John C. Gillespie submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae New Jersey State League of Municipalities and New Jersey Institute of Municipal Attorneys (Parker, McCay & Criscuolo and Kearns, Vassallo, Guest & Kearns, attorneys). Joseph J. Bell submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Morris County Municipal Prosecutors Association (Joseph J. Bell & Associates, attorneys). The opinion of the Court was delivered by COLEMAN, J. That rule is amended to read: A municipal attorney of any municipality shall not represent any defendant in the municipal court thereof, except to perform official duties, but may represent a defendant in a joint municipal court if the defendant resides and the offense was allegedly committed in a municipality for which the attorney is not the municipal attorney. A municipal prosecutor shall not represent any defendant in any other municipal court in that county or in the Superior Court located in that county but may represent a defendant in a municipal court or Superior Court in a county other than the one in which he or she serves as a municipal prosecutor. This rule does not apply to a municipal public defender who is not otherwise considered a municipal attorney. An attorney who is a member of the governing body of a municipality shall not practice in the municipal court of that municipality. (New language underscored.) We recognize that the Rule amendment that we adopt today prohibiting municipal prosecutors from practicing criminal law as a defense attorney in the county in which he or she holds office will likely lead to some resignations by municipal prosecutors. Nonetheless, we agree with the Attorney General that a per se rule is required. [T]he municipal prosecutor/defense attorney will always be part of the prosecutorial branch of the county because of the supervisory authority maintained by the County Prosecutor's Officer over the municipal prosecutors. We also agree with the Attorney General that there is no existing reason to require a statewide ban and that the prohibition against municipal prosecutors involvement in defense work should be limited to the county in which the municipal prosecutor serves. The new Rule, however, extends to all municipal courts located in the same county in which the municipal prosecutor's municipality is located, and all criminal defense matters including but not limited to indictable offenses, as well as juvenile offenses, Megan's Law proceedings, and criminal prosecutions based on domestic violence violations. NO. A-120 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT F. CLARK, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED January 19, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz