RECORD IMPOUNDED

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

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).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

June 13, 2017
2 A-3300-15T2

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. 
3 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 medicationcompliant, 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 
4 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.