SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5049-16T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

M.R.W.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

Submitted May 29, 2018 – Decided June 6, 2018

Before Judges Hoffman and Gilson.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Mercer County, Indictment No. 

15-11-1243.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Tamer Lerer, Assistant Deputy 

Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent (Laura Sunyak, 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM 

Defendant appeals from the October 24, 2016 Law Division 

order denying her appeal of the denial of her pre-trial 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-5049-16T1

intervention (PTI) program application. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12 and 

R. 3:28. We affirm.

I

In July 2015, defendant, then age nineteen, admitted to police 

that she violently killed the family dog. The night before, she 

"went to bed with an 'impulse' to kill the [dog]." The following 

morning, she gave the dog oxycodone, which made him lethargic but 

did not kill him. Several hours later, she bludgeoned the dog's 

head with a shovel, and, when that proved unsuccessful, she 

repeatedly struck his head with a hammer until he died. She 

initially hid the dog in a refrigerator, but buried him a day 

later with assistance from a friend.

Defendant told police that she "had impulses . . . to 

hurt/kill someone" but probably would not act on them because she 

felt guilty about killing the dog. She added that "part of the 

thrill" of the crime was "being able to perform the act, clean the 

crime scene, and get away with it" before her father returned home 

from work. She stated that "she wanted to be famous and listed 

names of serial killers she wished to be like." After her arrest, 

she was involuntarily committed after a crisis team determined 

that she was a threat to herself and others.

Defendant was indicted on charges of third-degree animal 

cruelty, third- and fourth-degree weapons possession, and fourth-
3 A-5049-16T1

degree evidence tampering. Thereafter, she sought admission into 

the PTI program. 

During her interview, she told probation that she killed the 

dog during a "psychotic episode" when she "was mentally ill and 

using drugs instead of her prescribed medications." Her 

psychiatric history before the offense included multiple inpatient 

hospitalizations and two suicide attempts. After the offense, she 

was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and gender 

identity disorder and hospitalized at Trenton Psychiatric Hospital 

for two months. Upon discharge to the county jail, she was placed 

in solitary confinement because she reportedly "fear[ed] she 

w[ould] kill other inmates in her sleep." 

The program director recommended enrollment into PTI, noting 

that the crime was defendant's first offense, and that a 

"combination of her mental health problems, drug use, and hormone 

treatments may have contributed to the behavior." In August 2016, 

the prosecutor rejected defendant's PTI application. The 

prosecutor's statement of reasons reflects consideration of her 

individual circumstances, including her age, education, employment 

history, substance abuse and mental health history, physical 

health, and the "heinous" nature of her first offense. The 

prosecutor emphasized that defendant "suffers from a variety of 

physical and mental health ailments that require intensive levels 
4 A-5049-16T1

of management and treatment" and has substance abuse issues "that 

would likely also require intensive levels of treatment to cure."

Defendant appealed, contending "[t]he apparent heinousness 

of the crime has clouded the State's objective analysis of the 

case," and the prosecutor "failed to consider all of the relevant 

factors" and "considered irrelevant or inappropriate factors,"

which "amounted to a clear error in judgment." She stressed 

difficult life circumstances culminating in "a temporary psychotic 

break" during which she committed the crime. She highlighted her 

compliance with mental health treatment and stability since the 

incident, along with her "genuine remorse." 

On October 24, 2016, the court denied defendant's appeal. It 

found that "the State thoroughly considered the relevant factors" 

and was "not required to interpret the relevant factors in the 

same manner the defendant would as long as it does not clearly err 

in judgment." It held that defendant failed to demonstrate that 

the State patently and grossly abused its discretion in any way.

Subsequently, defendant pled guilty to one amended count of 

fourth-degree animal cruelty and the remaining charges were 

dismissed. The court sentenced her to probation for two years. 

This appeal followed.
5 A-5049-16T1

II

Defendant contends, as she did in the Law Division, that the 

denial of her PTI application constituted a patent and gross abuse 

of discretion because the State: (1) failed to consider all 

relevant factors; (2) "considered her mental health issues in an 

inappropriate manner"; and (3) committed "a clear error in 

judgment" by denying PTI "given that [defendant] was in the throes 

of a mental health crisis when she committed th[e] offense." 

Initially, a reviewing court "must presume that all relevant 

factors were considered and weighed prior to a prosecutorial veto" 

until a defendant proves otherwise. State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84,

94 (1979). That said, "the statement of reasons must demonstrate 

that the prosecutor has carefully considered the facts in light 

of the relevant law." State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 584 (1996). 

Contrary to defendant's contention, the required presumption 

coupled with the statement of reasons in this case supports the 

trial court's conclusion that the prosecutor considered all 

relevant factors and made a proper individualized assessment of 

defendant's circumstances. She simply disagrees with the end 

result, and that alone is insufficient to warrant reversal. 

Defendant also contends that the prosecutor should have 

weighed her significant mental health history as favoring 

admission into PTI instead of rejection. However, as the trial 
6 A-5049-16T1

court correctly concluded, the law does not require the prosecutor 

to consider a statutory factor in the manner that defendant would 

prefer it to be considered. Indeed, it requires only that the 

prosecutor give due consideration to each statutory factor, and 

that was done here. See id. at 585-86 ("Notably, nowhere does the 

statute attempt to instruct the prosecutor on the relative weight 

to be assigned these several criteria. . . . [I]t clearly intended 

to leave the weighing process to the prosecutor . . . ."). Again, 

defendant's contention is unavailing, as her disagreement with the 

prosecutor's decision fails to establish that a patent and gross 

abuse of discretion occurred. Because defendant failed to meet 

the heavy burden required to prove any of her contentions under 

Bender, 80 N.J. at 93, we are constrained to affirm. Any arguments 

not specifically addressed lack sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.