Opinion ID: 2398940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: appeals before the court

Text: Defendants Leonardis and Rose argued before this Court that their applications for admission to the pretrial intervention program of Bergen County were improperly denied. As previously noted, they were denied admission because the crimes with which they were charged fell within the ambit of the program's exclusionary criteria without any individualized consideration of the offender. While the defendants challenge the validity of such criteria on equal protection grounds, their primary objection concerns the perfunctory manner in which their applications were reviewed by officials in the Bergen County program. Defendants allege that the decision of the trial judge was founded upon insufficient information, and that in fact, no file was ever prepared regarding their eligibility for the program. This, they contend, resulted from a preliminary determination by county officials that the exclusionary criteria of the Bergen County program automatically precluded consideration of applicants who were charged with controlled dangerous substances crimes. Although defendants concede that their cases are within the exclusionary criteria, they nonetheless argue that the criteria are not mandatory in nature. The criteria expressly provide that heinous crimes are ordinarily [to] be excluded, and hence this means that they are not necessarily excluded. The State does not meet this contention. Instead it argues that courts in general lack jurisdiction to hear appeals arising under R. 3:28 and that equal protection considerations are not implicated by the exclusionary criteria in the Bergen County program. We first address the jurisdictional argument. Clearly, if we lack the jurisdiction, further consideration of the issues presented in this case is unnecessary. The State bases its contention on the fact that R. 3:28 does not expressly provide for appellate review of determinations by the program director, the prosecuting attorney, or the designated judge. Although the State concedes that a hearing must be furnished pursuant to R. 3:28(c) (3), it contends that this proceeding is only available to candidates who have been denied the required consent of the program director and the prosecuting attorney but are otherwise eligible for admission. The appeals of Leonardis and Rose, the State argues, are distinguishable because the defendants fail to meet other prerequisites of the program besides the consent requirement. While we recognize the imprecision of R. 3:28 and the general proposition that appellate review in a criminal case is not mandated by due process of law, McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 14 S.Ct. 913, 38 L.Ed. 867 (1894); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 21, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, 900 (1956) (concurring opinion); Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 610-611, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 41 L.Ed. 2d 341, 351 (1974), we find neither factor to be dispositive of this issue. We are not here concerned with the interpretation of a statutory scheme which prescribes one, two or no appeals. Rather, we are involved with the interpretation of a court rule. By express provision of the New Jersey Constitution, [12] this Court has been vested with power to make rules concerning the administration, practice and procedure of the courts of this State. This power has been broadly construed to include not only the promulgation of such rules, but their interpretation and enforcement as well. John S. Westervelt's Sons v. Regency, Inc., 3 N.J. 472 (1950); State v. Rush, 46 N.J. 399 (1966). Thus, in In re Mattera, 34 N.J. 259 (1961), Chief Justice Weintraub observed: [T]his court is charged with responsibility for the overall performance of the judicial branch. Responsibility for a result implies power reasonably necessary to achieve it. More specifically, the power to make rules imports the power to enforce them. [34 N.J. at 272]. As implied by this statement, our powers of enforcement under this provision also include the power to review the operation of court initiated procedures and to review the legal determinations made pursuant to these procedures. Our failure to do so would be an abdication of the rule-making authority with which we have been entrusted. Any interlocutory order of a trial court is appealable by leave of court. R. 2:2. Thus, regardless whether appellate review was expressly provided in R. 3:28, we find the instant matter to be judicially cognizable. [13] In the instant case, defendants have been found ineligible for admission to the Bergen County PTI program by virtue of their having committed heinous crimes as defined by the exclusionary criteria. Through the application of these criteria, defendants have been automatically precluded from participating in the county's program. Defendants argue that the exclusionary criteria of the Bergen County program are only suggestive of those cases which ordinarily are to be excluded and are not mandatory in their operation. See footnote 3, supra. Because the program's officials reviewed their applications as if defendants were automatically excluded, defendants allege that there was no true determination of whether their respective cases were among those which ordinarily would have been excluded. In the alternative, defendants contend that the exclusionary criteria employed by the Bergen County PTI program are violative of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. We find it unnecessary to reach either of the contentions raised by defendants. Instead, our decision rests on more fundamental deficiencies which we find inherent in the Bergen County PTI program and in its exclusionary criteria. Initially, we note that there was no malevolence on the part of the Bergen County program in adopting or administering these exclusionary criteria. Our conclusions are rather based upon the statewide experience with PTI and upon our desire to expand pretrial intervention beyond the programs (such as that in Bergen County) which pioneered the concept. Thus our observations are intended to apply to other PTI programs in New Jersey which exhibit the same deficiencies which we now consider. Our basic criticism of the Bergen County exclusionary criteria concerns the unduly restrictive impact which they may have on admissions into the program. In this regard, the criteria are inconsistent with the underlying liberal policy of R. 3:28. As a recent proposal for a uniform, statewide PTI program stated: New Jersey's R. 3:28 contains no criteria limiting participation to any class of defendants, and although New Jersey programs use guidelines for exclusion, the guidelines show only those cases that are ordinarily excluded. Enrollment then, of the offender rather than the offense is the rule in New Jersey and appears to be the trend of development among programs nationally. [ Proposal, supra, at 49 emphasis in original] As this excerpt suggests, exclusionary criteria should be intended as guidelines only and not as mandatory standards. A mandatory application of such criteria improperly restricts the operation of R. 3:28. Because both defendants were charged with heinous offenses as defined under the exclusionary criteria, program officials prepared no files in connection with their applications. In fact, in the case of Leonardis, the defendant was not even permitted to present a formal application for admission. Consequently, when the designated judge ruled on defendants' motions for admission to the Bergen County program, his decision was based on a record devoid of background material on the defendants' rehabilitative potential. Such clearly pertinent factors as Leonardis' employment, his unblemished record and the full-time student status of Rose never entered the decisions of either the program director or the designated judge. Our objections to the criteria employed by the Bergen County program, however, transcend the manner in which they were applied. We find that the exclusionary criteria accord misplaced emphasis to the offense with which a defendant is charged and hence fail to emphasize the defendant's potential for rehabilitation. [14] By restricting their initial consideration to an evaluation of the charges brought against defendant, the criteria ignore such important factors as the defendant's willingness to avoid conviction and its attendant stigma, the motivation behind the commission of the crime, the age and past criminal record of the defendant and his current rehabilitative efforts. By ignoring these factors, the criteria clearly contradict the rehabilitative purpose which underlies PTI. Because of these shortcomings, and because we feel that the future utility of PTI is dependent upon its uniform implementation on a statewide basis, we reject the Bergen County exclusionary criteria as absolute standards by which to evaluate defendants' applications. This determination makes it unnecessary for us to reach the equal protection arguments posed by the defendants. Although we recognize that such contentions have been rejected by other courts in their review of comparable programs, Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 94 S.Ct. 700, 38 L.Ed. 2d 618 (1974) (upholding rejection of defendant's application for admission to rehabilitative treatment program under Title II of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 (N.A.R.A.), 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 4251-55), the constitutional overtones which accompany a PTI admissions decision cannot be rejected out of hand. See Proposal, supra, at 28. This is especially true in light of the recent judicial willingness to accord protected status to social privileges which do not otherwise constitute a fundamental right. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed. 2d 287 (1970). We nonetheless defer such considerations until another day, and decline to determine this cause on constitutional grounds. But see, State v. Nolfi, supra, 141 N.J. Super. at 537. Within the context of the appeals presented by Leonardis and Rose, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division. We remand these appeals to the trial court for a determination of whether intervention would be appropriate under R. 3:28 and the Bergen County program as modified. The court's determination in this regard should be premised upon its assessment of all the favors identified as relevant by this opinion. In no case, however, should the trial court deny a hearing or refuse intervention solely by reason of the nature of the crime of which the defendant is accused.
This appeal, unlike those of Leonardis and Rose, concerns the PTI program of Hudson County and asks whether a prosecutor may refuse to articulate his reasons for declining to consent to a defendant's admission into a PTI program, such consent being a prerequisite to admission under R. 3:28. This question comes before us on motion by the Hudson County prosecutor for leave to appeal an unfavorable determination by the county's designated judge. Our inquiry in this regard concerns whether the purposes of PTI or pertinent standards of constitutional law require that the prosecutor set forth his reasons for refusing to give his consent. We first note that compelling a prosecutor to furnish reasons for his decisions is not only consistent with the goals of PTI, but tends to further their implementation. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals in its report on Corrections stated: If diversion programs are to perform as they are intended, then the decisions of those referring to these programs must be subject to review and evaluation.... The first step in establishing accountability is to disclose the basis of decisions. Too often the rationale for discretionary decisions is undisclosed and unstated. Simply requiring written statements for each decision forces the process to become more open while it also permits administrative or judicial review. Review can be through the courts, the legislature, or whatever source seems most appropriate in seeing that goals have been achieved and standards complied with. [ Corrections, supra, at 96] Additional reasons exist for requiring disclosure. First, as we have already noted, our power to enforce court rules, especially in the context of R. 3:28, necessarily includes the power to review decisions made pursuant to those rules. In order to facilitate such review, courts require a record setting forth reasons for the decision which is to be reviewed. Monks v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 58 N.J. 238 (1971). Second, as a relatively recent innovation, pretrial intervention may still be described as essentially experimental. Experience with PTI in New Jersey illustrates that such programs may assume a variety of forms and serve a variety of functions. While we feel that the PTI concept is now well established in this State, we, nonetheless, appreciate the need for experimentation, evaluation, assessment and modification of programs. See generally, Descriptive Profiles, supra; Courts, supra at 31. A requirement that prosecutors (and, for that matter, judges and program administrators) justify their decisions on individual applications will provide a valuable source of information for purposes of future evaluation. In addition, an explanation of a prosecutor's decisional basis will assist the in-house reviews which we anticipate county programs will perform on their own. Proposal, supra at 56. Finally, providing a defendant with reasons for the denial of his application will not only allow a defendant to adequately prepare for judicial review of that decision, but will also promote the rehabilitative function which the PTI concept serves. At the very least, disclosure will alleviate existing suspicions about the arbitrariness of given decisions and will thereby foster a respect for the fair operation of the law. Our recognition that the decision to admit or reject an applicant for pretrial intervention is an exercise of quasi-judicial power obviates our need to discuss the analogies that the parties draw between PTI programs and administrative agencies. [15] Within a wholly judicial sphere we are not confronted by potential conflicts with either the executive or the legislative branches of our government; similarly, we are not faced with the need to defer to the expertise of an administrative body. Nonetheless, even if we were to recognize such analogies, our reading of the relevant case law on both the federal and state levels would inevitably lead us to the same conclusion. Since 1951, the courts of this country have followed the basic proposition enunciated by Justice Frankfurter in a concurring opinion in Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951), that procedural protections are invoked in an administrative proceeding when an individual is confronted with a grievous loss of liberty or property. More recent extrapolations of that principle suggest that the potential loss to which Justice Frankfurter alluded is not confined to interests of constitutional dimension but may encompass other privileges as well. Goldberg v. Kelly, supra ; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed. 2d 935 (1974); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 627, n. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed. 2d 600, 611 (1969). An extension of this reasoning has been applied by our own Court. Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 519 (1975) [16] ; In Interest of D.G.W., 70 N.J. 488, 501-502 (1976). Consequently, we must reject the argument presented by amicus curiae, New Jersey Prosecutors Association, which suggests that denial of admission to a PTI program will have only one effect on the rejected candidate  that is, to require the defendant to proceed in due course with a regular criminal trial. This sort of reasoning would negate the potential value which PTI serves in seeking the rehabilitation of defendants. Furthermore, we regard defendant's interest in achieving diversion without plea or trial to be so important, that we are unwilling to overlook the advantages of participating in a PTI program. This judicial concern for the protection of specially-designated interests and privileges is evidenced by a judicial willingness to impose a requirement on administrative agencies that they provide a statement of reasons for their actions. By facilitating appellate review of agency determinations, such statements protect defendants from the arbitrary actions of an agency. 2 Davis, Administrative Law, § 16.05 at 446-48 (1958). Thus, in Donaldson v. N. Wildwood Bd. of Educ., 65 N.J. 236 (1974), Justice Jacobs noted the importance of providing a statement of reasons to a teacher who sought review of a school board's failure to renew his contract: If he is not reengaged and tenure is thus precluded he is surely interested in knowing why and every human consideration along with all thoughts of elemental fairness and justice suggest that, when he asks, he be told why. Perhaps the statement of reasons will disclose correctible deficiencies and be of service in guiding his future conduct; perhaps it will disclose that the nonretention was due to factors unrelated to his professional or classroom performance and its availability may aid him in obtaining future teaching employment; perhaps it will serve other purposes fairly helpful to him as suggested in Drown [Drown v. Portsmouth School District, 435 F.2d 1182 at 1184-1185 (1 Civ. 1970)]; and perhaps the very requirement that reasons be stated would, as suggested in Monks ..., serve as a significant discipline on the board itself against arbitrary or abusive exercise of its broad discretionary powers. [65 N.J. at 245]. A similar rationale was employed by this Court in other situations which concerned the exercise of administrative discretion. Avant v. Clifford, supra (prison disciplinary boards); Fanwood v. Rocco, 33 N.J. 404, 416 (1960) (municipal governing body granting liquor licenses); Abbotts Dairies v. Armstrong, 14 N.J. 319, 332-333 (1954) (Director of Office of Milk Industry issuing price-fixing orders). Our attention in this regard is drawn to cases on both the federal and state levels which have required a statement of reasons from agencies responsible for granting parole and probation, under circumstances which are procedurally analogous to pretrial intervention. The United States Supreme in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 487, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed. 2d 484, 498 (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 791, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed. 2d 656, 666-67 (1973) imposed such a requirement where administrative authorities sought to revoke these privileges from a defendant. These decisions, however, were preceded by our own decision in Monks v. N.J. State Parole Bd., supra . Defendant in that case appealed from a refusal by the State Parole Board to provide reasons for denying him parole. In his opinion for the Court upholding defendant's position, Justice Jacobs made an observation which is as applicable to PTI as it was to the parole process in Monks : The need for fairness is as urgent in the parole process as elsewhere in the law and it is evident to us that, as a general matter, the furnishing of reasons for denial would be the much fairer course; not only much fairer but much better designed towards the goal of rehabilitation. [58 N.J. at 246; emphasis supplied] The Court in that case, also addressed the supposed burden which the furnishing of reasons would impose on the agency  an argument which was raised by Hudson County prosecutor in the instant case. In this regard, the Court stated: So here, fairness and rightness clearly dictate the granting of the prisoner's request for a statement of reasons. That course as a general matter would serve the acknowledged interests of procedural fairness and would also serve as a suitable and significant discipline on the Board's exercise of its wide powers. It would in nowise curb the Board's discretion on the grant or denial of parole nor would it impair the scope and effect of its expertise. It is evident to us that such incidental administrative burdens as result would not be undue; the reported experiences in the jurisdictions which have long furnished reasons have given us no grounds for pause. [58 N.J. at 249] The courts which have required that a statement of reasons be furnished to defendants have remained cognizant of considerations which mitigate against this procedure. Thus, as this Court stated in Monks, reasons are to be furnished, while providing for such reasonable exceptions as may be essential to rehabilitations and the sound administration of the parole system. 58 N.J. at 249-50. See also, Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, 408 U.S. at 487-88, 92 S.Ct. at 2603-04, 33 L.Ed. 2d at 497-98. Accordingly, we find that a statement of reasons for denial of consent by a prosecutor should ordinarily be afforded to all applicants for admission to a PTI program. Where furnishing reasons to defendant would be unduly prejudicial to law enforcement efforts, for example, by requiring the revelation of confidential or sensitive information from an informant, the prosecutor may apply to the designated judge for an in camera hearing. At this hearing, the prosecutor would be required to present justification for his reluctance or refusal to state reasons. The judge would thereafter determine whether the State's interest sufficiently outweighed the interest of the defendant in obtaining a statement of reasons. Insofar as this case is concerned, therefore, we affirm the order of the trial court requiring the prosecutor to give reasons for his refusal to consent to defendant's participation in the county PTI program, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.