Court Opinion

ID: 9693776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:59:57.316876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:50.314660
License: Public Domain

STEIN, J.,
dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons articulated in its opinion. State v. Zeidell, 299 N.J.Super. 613, 619-22, 691 A.2d 866 (App.Div.1997). As that opinion clearly demonstrates, our Code contemplates an act of specific victimization to sustain a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2b. See State v. Ridgeway, 256 N.J.Super. 202, 204-06, 606 A.2d 873 (App.Div.) (upholding guilty plea to sexual assault when facts indicated that defendant specifically targeted eleven-year-old girl to witness defendant touching himself), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 18, 611 A.2d 656 (1992); Cannel, New Jersey Criminal Code, Annotated, comment 4 on N.J.S.A 2C:14-1 (1997-98) (noting that “when the actor touches himself ... and either forces the victim to observe or is aware of observation by a victim under the critical age there is enough of an aetor/victim relationship to amount to criminal sexual contact”). This record reveals no public act performed by defendant with sufficient intent or awareness that it be witnessed by children under the age of thirteen.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, GARIBALDI and COLEMAN — 5.
For affirmance — Justice STEIN — 1.