1 

SYLLABUS 

This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. 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 Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion. 

State v. Jerry Rosado (A-53-22) (088067) 

(NOTE: The Court did not write a plenary opinion in this case. The Court 

affirms the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons 

expressed in Judge Gilson’s opinion, 475 N.J. Super. 266 (App. Div. 2023).) 

Argued November 28, 2023 -- Decided December 13, 2023 

PER CURIAM 

In this appeal, the Court considers whether the January 3, 2002 amendment to 

the criminal statute of limitations, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6, can toll the five-year limitations 

period in effect in 1990, when defendant allegedly committed a sexual assault. 

On May 27, 1990, S.N. was found dead in Wildwood City. Vaginal smears 

and fingernail scrapings taken from S.N. contained an unknown DNA profile, but no 

one was charged with any crime related to her death or sexual assault for more than 

30 years. In August 2018, the unknown DNA profile was sent to a different lab for 

analysis, and defendant was identified as a person of interest. In June 2021, DNA 

taken from defendant was found to have a high probability of matching the DNA 

from S.N.’s body. Defendant was charged with sexual assault in April 2022.

 Defendant moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, contending that his 

prosecution was time-barred by the statute of limitations in effect at the time the 

crime was committed. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, reasoning that the 

statute of limitations did not begin to run until detectives obtained DNA from 

defendant in 2021. The court held that the 2002 amendment to the statute of 

limitations did not revive an expired prosecution and, therefore, did not violate the 

Ex Post Facto Clause of the Federal Constitution. The Appellate Division granted 

defendant’s motion for leave to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. 

The Appellate Division reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to 

dismiss the criminal complaint with prejudice. 475 N.J. Super. 266, 270 (App. Div. 

2023). 

 Noting that the statute of limitations is a complete defense to a criminal 

prosecution, the Appellate Division explained that, at the time the crime was 
2 

committed, the statute of limitations for sexual assault was five years. Id. at 273 

(citing N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6(b)(1) (1989)). And the five years began to run “on the day 

after the offense [was] committed,” i.e., “when every element [of the offense] 

occur[red].” Id. at 273-74 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6 (1989)). The five-year 

limitations period thus expired on May 27, 1995. See id. at 275. 

The Appellate Division next observed that, “[s]ince 1990, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-6 has 

been amended several times” and “[t]wo of those amendments are relevant” here: 

(1) the 1996 amendment “eliminat[ing] the time limitation for bringing a prosecution 

for a sexual assault”; and (2) the 2002 amendment that “carve[d] out an exception 

for circumstances in which the prosecution includes DNA or fingerprint evidence.” 

Id. at 274. 

 The appellate court noted that the State had conceded that the 1996 

amendment did not apply -- a concession “consistent with the plain language of the 

1996 amendment, which stated that it was applicable to ‘offenses not yet barred 

from prosecution . . . as of’ May 1, 1996.” Id. at 275 (quoting L. 1996, c. 22, § 2). 

The Appellate Division then determined that the 2002 amendment likewise did not 

apply: “The 1996 amendment reveals that the Legislature clearly understood that 

amendments could be applied prospectively or retroactively,” the court stressed, and 

yet “[t]he 2002 amendment does not contain any language indicating that the 

Legislature intended to apply that amendment retroactively. Instead, in enacting the 

2002 amendment, the Legislature stated that the amendment ‘shall take effect 

immediately,’” a phrase the Court has consistently held to signal prospective 

application only. Id. at 275-76 (quoting L. 2001, c. 308, § 2). 

 Finally, the Appellate Division found that its plain language interpretation 

was reinforced by the ex post facto protections of the State and Federal 

Constitutions, which “prevent the time for prosecution to be extended in any case 

where the pre-existing limitations period has already expired.” Id. at 276. The court 

explained that, if defendant had been charged with the same crime in 1997, the 

charge would clearly have been time-barred under the statute of limitations in effect 

at that time; the same therefore had to hold true despite the 2002 amendment, which 

could not “constitutionally revive what has already expired.” Id. at 277-78. 

HELD: The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the 

reasons expressed in Judge Gilson’s opinion.

AFFIRMED. 

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES PATTERSON, SOLOMON, 

PIERRE-LOUIS, WAINER APTER, and NORIEGA join in this opinion. 

JUSTICE FASCIALE did not participate. 

-----
1 

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

A-53 September Term 2022

088067

State of New Jersey, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v.

Jerry Rosado, 

Defendant-Respondent. 

On certification to the Superior Court, 

Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 

475 N.J. Super. 266 (App. Div. 2023).

Argued 

November 28, 2023 

Decided 

December 13, 2023 

Gretchen A. Pickering, Deputy First Assistant Prosecutor, 

argued the cause for appellant (Jeffrey H. Sutherland, 

Cape May County Prosecutor, attorney; Gretchen A. 

Pickering, of counsel and on the briefs). 

Morgan A. Birck, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, 

argued the cause for respondent (Joseph E. Krakora,

Public Defender, attorney; Morgan A. Birck and Eric R. 

Shenkus, Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the 

briefs). 

Richard D. Pompelio argued the cause for amicus curiae 

New Jersey Crime Victims’ Law Center (New Jersey 

Crime Victims’ Law Center, attorneys; Richard D. 

Pompelio, of counsel and on the brief). 
2 

Alexander Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American 

Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, 

attorneys; Alexander Shalom and Jeanne LoCicero, on

the brief). 

Jhanice Domingo argued the cause for amicus curiae 

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey 

(Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; CJ Griffin

and Zachary Levy, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

The judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division is affirmed 

substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Gilson’s opinion, reported at 

475 N.J. Super. 266 (App. Div. 2023). 

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES PATTERSON, SOLOMON, 

PIERRE-LOUIS, WAINER APTER, and NORIEGA join in this opinion. 

JUSTICE FASCIALE did not participate.