RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3147-18T1

IN THE MATTER OF 

REGISTRANT J.P.

Argued telephonically May 7, 2020 –

Decided May 19, 2020

Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. 18010056.

Jesse M. DeBrosse, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, 

argued the cause for appellant J.P. (Joseph E. Krakora, 

Public Defender, attorney; Jesse M. DeBrosse, of 

counsel and on the brief).

Mario C. Formica, Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor, 

argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey

(Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, 

attorney; Mario C. Formica, of counsel and on the 

brief).

PER CURIAM

Registrant J.P. pled guilty to two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual 

assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1), each naming as the victim a separate child 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3147-18T1

residing in J.P.'s household. In accord with the plea agreement, on February 21, 

2014, the judge sentenced defendant in the second-degree range, eight years 

concurrent on each crime, subject to the No Early Release Act's eighty-five 

percent parole ineligibility. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. 

Upon J.P.'s release, after a Megan's Law classification hearing, the Law 

Division judge classified him as a Tier II moderate risk of reoffense. The judge 

also concluded J.P. was not exempt from the Internet Sex Offender Central 

Registry, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-12 and -13. That each count related to a separate victim, 

she opined, meant that the household/incest exception was not available to J.P. 

In her view, no other reading of the statute would "make sense." We agree and 

affirm.

J.P. raises the following points of error:

I. J.P. SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED 

FROM THE INTERNET REGISTRY UNDER 

N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(D)(2), THE HOUSEHOLD 

EXCEPTION, BECAUSE HIS CONVICTION IN 2014 

FOR ACTS AGAINST HIS BIOLOGICAL SONS 

WAS "SINGLE CONVICTION" INVOLVING 

"MEMBERS OF NO MORE THAN A SINGLE 

HOUSEHOLD."

A. Since the phrase "members of no more than 

a single household" is plural, it applies to 

cases involving more than one victim, 

provided the offenses were committed 

within a single household.
3

A-3147-18T1

B. J.P. has a "single conviction" for purposes 

of the internet registry statute even though 

he was convicted of two counts, as he was 

convicted on one occasion without reoffense.

C. Contrary to the State's argument below, the 

Attorney General Guidelines cannot be 

used to interpret a statutory provision that 

makes no mention of them.

N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(d) enumerates exceptions from Internet registration of 

an offender's record. In order to qualify for an exception, an offender's risk 

level, like J.P.'s, must be no more than moderate, subjecting him or her to 

notification requirements including "schools, religious and youth organizations 

. . . in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines," in addition to "law 

enforcement agencies likely to encounter the person registered . . . ." N.J.S.A. 

2C:7-8(c)(1) and (2). 

The specific exception at issue requires the registrant's "sole sex offense" 

be a "conviction . . . under circumstances in which the offender was related to 

the victim by blood . . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(d)(2). This is usually referred to 

as the "household/incest exception" to Internet registration.

J.P. contends that since the offenses were committed against members of 

a single household, albeit two separate children, he committed a "sole sex 
4

A-3147-18T1

offense." He argues he is thus exempt, as any other construction of the statute 

would render meaningless the following closing language to the pertinent 

section:

For purposes of this subsection, "sole sex offense" 

means a single conviction, adjudication of guilty or 

acquittal by reason of insanity, as the case may be, for 

a sex offense which involved no more than one victim, 

no more than one occurrence or, in the case of an 

offense which meets the criteria of paragraph (2) of this 

subsection, members of no more than a single 

household.

[N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(d).]

If J.P.'s crimes are construed as a "sole sex offense," then he is not subject to 

registration on the Internet. 

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, when addressing questions 

of statutory construction, our primary goal is to determine the intent of the 

Legislature. In re N.B., 222 N.J. 87, 98 (2015). "[T]he best indicator of that 

intent is the plain language chosen by the Legislature." State v. Gandhi, 201 

N.J. 161, 176 (2010); see also State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221, 228 (2014) 

("statutes, words and phrases shall be read and construed with their context, and 

shall, unless inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature or unless 

another or different meaning is expressly indicated, be given their generally 

accepted meaning") (quotations omitted).
5

A-3147-18T1

"When the Legislature's chosen words lead to one clear and unambiguous 

result, the interpretative process comes to a close, without the need to consider 

extrinsic aids." State v. Shelley, 205 N.J. 320, 323 (2011). However, a court 

will seek out "extrinsic evidence, such as legislative history, for assistance when 

statutory language yields more than one plausible interpretation." Id. at 323-24 

(quotations omitted). The Court has described the provision containing the 

household/incest exception as "ambiguous." N.B., 222 N.J. at 99. 

"[A]n offender in the household/incest category . . . may qualify for the 

exception in a broader category of cases: those which involve 'no more than one 

victim, no more than one occurrence or . . . members of no more than a single 

household.'" Id. at 100 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(d) and noting that the 

household/incest exception is intended to be less restrictive than the other two 

exceptions contained in that section).

In N.B., the defendant-registrant was an individual convicted of one count 

of aggravated sexual assault who admitted to assaulting his half-sister multiple 

times when they lived together. Id. at 91-92. In applying the household/incest 

exception, the Court had to "determine whether the Legislature intended that an 

offender . . . qualifies for the household/incest exception notwithstanding his or 
6

A-3147-18T1

her admission to more than one instance of sexual contact with a victim who is 

his or her relative." Id. at 97-98. 

In deciding the meaning of "sole sex offense," the Court relied on Megan's 

Law committee statements noting the definition "help[s] ensure that the 

exemption from inclusion on the Internet registry is not improperly applied to 

repeat sex offenders who offend against more than one victim or who victimize 

a single individual more than once." Id. at 102 (citing S. Comm. Statement to 

S. 1208 (May 6, 2004); Assemb. Comm. Statement to S. 1208 (June 3, 2004)). 

The Court therefore concluded "that the Legislature intended the 

household/incest exception to apply to a registrant whose single conviction 

otherwise meets the requirements of [the exception] and involves more than one 

instance of sexual contact with a single victim who is within his or her 

household." Ibid. However, the court did "not address whether an offender with 

a single conviction premised upon multiple acts upon multiple victims, all 

within the household and to whom the offender was related 'by blood or affinity 

to the third degree . . . ,' would fall within the household/incest exception . . . ." 

Id. at 102 n.7.

J.P. asserts that this case concerns the very issue the Supreme Court 

declined to address in N.B., whether an offender with multiple acts on multiple 
7

A-3147-18T1

victims, if within one household, fits within the household/incest exception. 

Thus, the real dispute is narrowed down to what the Legislature meant when it 

only made the exception available to an offender convicted of a "sole sex 

offense."

The parties agree that defendant meets many of the requirements of the 

household/incest exception by being a moderate risk of re-offense, being related 

to the victims, and having the victims within his household. It cannot be 

reasonably argued, however, that having pled guilty to two separate offenses, 

each involving a different victim, defendant entered a guilty plea to a "single 

conviction," or is guilty of committing only a "sole sex offense." 

The use of the word "members" of a single household is not surplusage if 

the statute as applied in this case is given that construction. The reference to 

"members" could readily be a reference to a perpetrator and a victim, not just a 

reference to more than one victim. The plural usage cannot overcome the clear 

statement of intent and unequivocal language at the beginning of the sentence, 

that sole sex offense means "a single conviction . . . for a sex offense which 

involved no more than one victim . . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(d) (emphasis added). 

In the context of Megan's Law reporting, we have previously said that the word 

"conviction" did not mean "judgment of conviction" for purposes of determining 
8

A-3147-18T1

the timeframe in which to register under Megan's Law. In re J.S., 444 N.J. 

Super. 303, 310, 313 (App. Div. 2016). 

Furthermore, the cases upon which J.P. relies have to do with enhanced 

sentencing. See State v. Anderson, 186 N.J. Super. 174 (App. Div. 1982); State 

v. Bowser, 272 N.J. Super. 582 (Law Div. 1993). Even if the incest/household 

exception to Internet registration is available for a defendant family member 

who commits multiple sexual offenses against one victim, that does not mean 

that multiple charges as to separate victims are included. See N.B., 222 N.J. at 

100-03. This was not a "sole sex offense," but two sexual offenses. J.P. was 

properly subjected to Internet registration.

Affirmed.