Case Title: New Jersey v. Pinkston

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2018-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
SYLLABUS

(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 interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not
have been summarized.)

                        State v. Leo C. Pinkston (A-22-17) (080118)

Argued March 12, 2018 -- Decided June 14, 2018

RABNER, C.J., writing for the Court.

       The Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) provides that defendants “shall be afforded
an opportunity . . . to present witnesses” at pretrial detention hearings. 
N.J.S.A. 2A:162-
19(e)(1). In this appeal, the Court considers whether the provision allows a defendant to
compel an adverse witness to testify at a detention hearing.

       The police spotted defendant Leo Pinkston in a car that matched the general
description of a vehicle used in a shooting. The officers “activated their lights and sirens.”
Defendant allegedly “disregarded” the lights and sirens and drove off. Ultimately, defendant
struck another car, and both vehicles collided with a light pole and caught on fire. Defendant
was charged with second-degree eluding and second-degree aggravated assault while
eluding. Pretrial Services recommended against defendant’s release, and the State moved to
detain defendant.

        Defense counsel asked for an adjournment to obtain additional discovery and
subpoena police officers to testify at the hearing. The trial court denied defendant’s request.
After it considered the complaint, affidavit of probable cause, Public Safety Assessment,
Preliminary Law Enforcement Incident Report, and the arguments of counsel, the court
concluded that (a) probable cause existed, and (b) clear and convincing evidence established
that defendant should be detained.

       The Appellate Division concluded that, under the circumstances, the trial judge did
not mistakenly exercise his discretion in denying defendant’s request to call adverse
witnesses. The panel affirmed the finding of probable cause and order of detention.

       The Court granted defendant’s motion for leave to appeal. 
231 N.J. 418 (2017).

       Shortly before this appeal was argued, defendant pled guilty, and the State moved to
dismiss as moot. The Court denied the motion because “the appeal raise[d] an issue of
public importance that is capable of repetition yet evades review.” 
232 N.J. 299 (2018).

HELD: The CJRA -- like the federal and D.C. laws on which it is based in part -- provides
defendants a qualified right to summon adverse witnesses. Before calling an adverse witness, a
                                               1
defendant must proffer how the witness’s testimony would tend to negate probable cause or
undermine the State’s evidence in support of detention in a material way.

1. The CJRA and case law outline various safeguards that apply to detention hearings. The
State must provide discovery before the hearing in accordance with State v. Robinson, 
229 N.J. 44, 69-71 (2017). At the hearing, the State must first establish probable cause that the
defendant committed the charged offenses, unless a grand jury has already returned an
indictment. 
N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(2). The State may proceed by proffer to satisfy its
burden of proof. See State v. Ingram, 
230 N.J. 190, 195 (2017). Defendants have various
rights at the hearing: to be represented by counsel, “to testify, to present witnesses, to cross-
examine witnesses who appear at the hearing, and to present information by proffer or
otherwise.” 
N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(1). To decide if detention is appropriate, “'the court may
take into account information’ about the nature and circumstances of the offense, the weight
of the evidence, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the nature of the risk of danger
and obstruction the defendant poses, and '[t]he release recommendation of the pretrial
services program.’” State v. Mercedes, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op. at 14-15) (citing

N.J.S.A. 2A:162-20(a) to (f)). (pp. 8-9)

2. The text of the Criminal Justice Reform Act follows the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984
and the District of Columbia’s statutory scheme for pretrial detention in many respects. The
relevant text in all three laws is identical: a defendant “shall be afforded an opportunity . . .
to present witnesses.” Compare 
N.J.S.A. 2A:162-19(e)(1), with 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B),
and D.C. Code § 23-1322(d)(4). A number of federal courts have followed the reasoning of
United States v. Edwards, in which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals interpreted the
D.C. Code.