Court Opinion

ID: 9929839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 15:05:59.324809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:57:06.041278
License: Public Domain

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                     APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                     DOCKET NO. A-3434-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN
THE INTEREST OF M.P., a
juvenile
_________________________

                Submitted December 13, 2023 – Decided February 5, 2024

                Before Judges Vernoia and Walcott-Henderson.

                On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior
                Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
                Essex County, Docket No. FJ-07-1120-22.

                Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
                appellant (John P. Flynn, Assistant Deputy Public
                Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

                Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County
                Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E.
                Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
                Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

       By leave granted, juvenile-defendant M.P. appeals from a June 14, 2023

order granting the State's motion to waive jurisdiction of all charges against him

to the Criminal Division pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1.
      M.P. was seventeen years old when he was arrested and charged with acts

of delinquency, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of:

first-degree   attempted   murder,   N.J.S.A.   2C:11-3(a)(1)1,   second-degree

conspiracy to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a)(2) and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-

3(a)(1), fourth-degree criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3(a), and three

possessory weapons offenses, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a), and

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-6.19(b).

      We discern the following facts from the evidence adduced at the waiver

hearing. Police officers responded to a shot spotter alert in the Grace West

Manor residential complex in Newark. Detective Javier Figueroa from the

Newark Police Department Major Crimes Shooting Response unit was among

the officers who responded to the scene. At the waiver hearing, he testified the

investigation began with the photographing and collection of evidence,

including multiple shell casings found in Grace West's parking lot and a

projectile retrieved from the interior of a nearby apartment's bedroom wall.

      That same evening, Detective Figueroa contacted Grace West's property

management office and requested video footage from a surveillance camera he

1
 Although not expressly referenced in the charge disposition document provided
in the record on appeal, we note that M.P. was charged with an attempt under
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 to commit murder as an act of juvenile delinquency.
                                                                          A-3434-22
                                       2
had observed in the parking lot area where the shooting occurred. Detective

Figueroa later testified that from that video footage, which included recordings

from seven camera angles, he could see one entrance into Grace West.2 The

video showed two masked "actors" entering Grace West through a gate and

walking into the parking area where the shell casings had been found.

According to Detective Figueroa, one of the individuals wore "a red and blue

sweater," and the other individual wore a black sweater "with white writing in

the back." Both individuals could be seen firing multiple shots at an unknown

and yet unidentified victim.3 Detective Figueroa also explained the recordings

showed that the individual wearing the black sweatshirt actively pursued the

unidentified victim towards the apartment complex and then both shooters ran

from Grace West in the direction of another nearby residential complex known

as Fairview Homes.

      Approximately one to two days later, Detective Figueroa secured video

footage from the evening of the shooting from surveillance cameras outside of

2
  Grace West Manor is located at the intersection of Muhammad Ali Avenue
and 220 Irvine Turner Boulevard and is accessible by a gate.
3
  All parties agree that the person observed to be running from defendant at the
time of the shooting has never been identified and was not a witness in the
juvenile waiver hearing.
                                                                          A-3434-22
                                       3
Fairview Homes. The Fairview video surveillance cameras captured individuals

wearing the same-colored clothing as those in the video footage from Grace

West on the evening of the shooting. Recordings from the cameras showed two

individuals—one wearing a black sweatshirt with a white skull on the back and

blue jeans, and the other wearing a red and blue sweater with grey pants.

Detective Figueroa testified the video recordings showed the individual wearing

the black sweatshirt moving around the Fairview complex from the playground

area to the parking lot.

      From other video footage, these same two individuals were observed

getting into a grey Volkswagen SUV with a male driver wearing a white t-shirt,

black jeans, and red sneakers. The video showed the Volkswagen and its three

occupants leaving the Fairview complex. Detective Figueroa further testified

that from the Fairview video footage and additional video surveillance footage

from street cameras at 220 Irvine Turner Boulevard, with their multiple camera

angles, he observed the Volkswagen drive from 220 Irvine Turner Boulevard,

the street located just outside Fairview, to Grace West's parking area around the

time of the shooting. Thereafter, two individuals—identified by the detective

as M.P. and his co-defendant—could be seen exiting from the rear of the

                                                                           A-3434-22
                                       4
Volkswagen and entering the area of Grace West's parking lot, and later

returning to the Volkswagen after the shooting.

      Detective Figueroa testified that from the same video footage, he captured

"still" photographs of the individuals, including M.P., and after learning that

M.P. was a juvenile, he contacted M.P.'s father, also a resident of Newark, for

an interview. Approximately four months after the shooting, M.P.'s father

identified him from a still photograph that had been taken from the surveillance

video footage—although he could not positively identify M.P. from other

photos. Thereafter, M.P. was taken into custody and charged in the Family Part

with the aforementioned offenses.      The Essex County Prosecutor's Office

subsequently sought to waive defendant to the Criminal Division pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1 and Rule 5:22-2, and filed its waiver motion.

      The prosecutor issued a statement of reasons addressing the eleven factors

that must be considered in making a waiver determination under N.J.S.A.

2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)(a)–(k). The State based its findings on the evidence available

to it at the time, noting that it could not address factors N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-

26.1(c)(3)(e)—eligibility   for   special   education—and    N.J.S.A.   2A:4A-

26.1(c)(3)(j)—evidence of mental health concerns, substance abuse or

emotional instability of the juvenile—due to a lack of information. Although

                                                                          A-3434-22
                                        5
the prosecutor did not separately weigh each of the factors in her statement of

reasons, she explained that "[t]he nature and circumstances of this crime weigh

heavily in favor of waiving this juvenile to adult court," and noted that M.P. had

"reached the age of majority . . . a few short months after committing the

aforementioned crimes." The statement also listed the then-current charges and

included extensive references to M.P.'s prior history of delinquency.

      Nine months after the prosecutor filed its waiver motion, defense counsel

provided a forensic expert report authored by Catherine M. Barber, Ph.D., a

clinical and forensic psychologist with expertise in adolescent brain

development, M.P.'s educational records, and a series of Individualized

Educational Plans (IEPs) from various schools M.P. had attended.              The

prosecutor, however, did not provide a written response to the defense's

production of these documents preferring instead to wait until the conclusion of

the hearing to give their view of the mitigating evidence.

      Approximately two months after the report was submitted, the court

conducted the waiver hearing over the course of two days. There, the State

acknowledged, for the first time, M.P.'s expert's report and mitigating evidence

and stated:

              the State was in receipt of Dr. Barber's report, and the
              State indicated that it would not respond in writing at

                                                                            A-3434-22
                                         6
            that time. The State wanted to hear testimony from Dr.
            Barber, and the State [would be] ready to respond with
            respect to the impact that has had on the waiver motion.

      During the waiver hearing, the prosecutor called Detective Figueroa and

the defense called Dr. Barber. Dr. Barber diagnosed M.P. with Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) "on the more severe end[,]" chronic depression,

and substance abuse. She testified that although he was seventeen years old at

the time, his psychological maturity was that of a fourteen or fifteen-year-old,

and she highlighted his difficult relationship with his mother, prior involvement

in gangs, and difficulty with social relationships and learning. Dr. Barber based

her diagnosis on her review of M.P.'s educational records, including his IEPs,

the police incident report concerning the charges, which included video footage

and photographs, and her in-person interview with M.P.

      On cross-examination by the State, Dr. Barber's testimony was largely

consistent with her report and direct testimony regarding M.P.'s ADHD

diagnosis and its effect on his education, difficulty separating from gang

members, and behavior in general—that M.P. suffers from maturational delay.

M.P. did not testify at the waiver hearing.

      At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties presented their closing

arguments highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of their respective

                                                                           A-3434-22
                                        7
positions.   At the request of the court, M.P.'s counsel presented closing

arguments before the State. Counsel highlighted the alleged weaknesses in the

State's evidence in support of waiver initially focusing on the State's use of a

still photograph taken from video footage from Grace West and Fairview to

identify M.P. as the shooter and detective Figueroa's reliance upon M.P.'s

estranged father—who had not seen M.P. in more than one year—to identify

him as the person in the photograph. In addressing the statutory factors, M.P.'s

counsel argued the State failed to properly consider and weigh all of the factors,

including factor N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)(e)—eligibility for special education

and N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)(j)—evidence of mental health concerns,

substance abuse or emotional instability of the juvenile—and "did not properly

consider the factors that they did consider[,]" including a failure to provide any

reason why M.P.'s mitigating evidence did not weigh against waiver.

      Despite receiving M.P.'s expert report approximately two months before

the hearing, the State first addressed M.P.'s mitigating evidence during closing

arguments, stating "[t]he State wanted to hear testimony from Dr. Barber, and

the State is, at this point, ready to respond with respect to the impact that has

had on the waiver motion."

                                                                            A-3434-22
                                        8
      In closing arguments, the State disputed that M.P. had a cognitive

disability, stating "[h]e has an impulse control disability[.]" and "knows the

difference between right and wrong." Again, prior to closing arguments, the

State failed to address in writing M.P.'s expert report and opinions or any of the

mitigating evidence offered and to amend its initial statement of reasons in the

waiver motion.

      At the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a comprehensive oral

opinion, finding it was not "clearly convinced that the prosecutor abused her

discretion in her analysis of the eleven statutory factors in seeking waiver." The

court reviewed the prosecutor's determinations on each of the eleven factors and

the prosecutor's statement of reasons and concluding remarks in closing, found

the State had satisfied the statutory requirements for waiver. The court denied

M.P.'s request for a stay of its order. We granted M.P.'s motion for leave to

appeal and a stay.

      M.P. raises the following points for our consideration:

            POINT I

            THE PROSECUTOR AND THE FAMILY PART
            JUDGE ABUSED THEIR DISCRETION IN
            ASSESSING  THE  STATUTORY   WAIVER
            FACTORS.

                                                                            A-3434-22
                                        9
              A. The prosecutor violated Z.S.[4] and deprived M.P. of
              procedural due process by failing to respond to the
              extensive mitigation evidence in writing prior to the
              waiver hearing and by failing to ascribe specific
              weights to several of the waiver factors.

              B. The prosecutor abused her discretion in failing to
              find that factor (e) weighed against waiver despite the
              extensive, unrebutted evidence of M.P.'s classification
              as being eligible for special education.

              C. The prosecutor improperly discounted the
              unrebutted evidence of M.P.'s mental illnesses when
              assessing factors (j) and (d) and erroneously focused on
              the fact that M.P. knew right from wrong.

              D. The prosecutor improperly relied on dismissed and
              pending juvenile charges when assessing factors(g) and
              (k).

              POINT II

              THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS SHOULD OCCUR
              BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE BECAUSE THE
              JUDGE CREDITED CLAIMS THAT WERE NOT
              SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AND EVINCED A
              COMMITMENT     TO    UPHOLDING   THE
              PROSECUTOR'S   DECISION   TO   WAIVE
              JURISDICTION.

                                          I.

        The decision whether to seek waiver is committed to the discretion of the

prosecutor. State in Int. of N.H., 226 N.J. 242, 249 (2016) (citing N.J.S.A.

4
    State in the Int. of Z.S., 464 N.J. Super. 507, 519 (2020).
                                                                           A-3434-22
                                         10
2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)). The prosecutor has sixty days after receipt of the juvenile

complaint to file a motion for waiver. N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(a). The motion

must be accompanied by a statement of reasons setting forth the facts used to

assess the factors listed in the statute, together with an explanation of how those

factors support waiver. Ibid.; see also N.H., 226 N.J. at 250.

      Specifically, the prosecutor must consider the following eleven factors

listed in the waiver statute:

             (a) The nature and circumstances of the offense
             charged;

             (b) Whether the offense was against a person or
             property, allocating more weight for crimes against the
             person;

             (c) Degree of the juvenile's culpability;

             (d) Age and maturity of the juvenile;

             (e) Any classification that the juvenile is eligible for
             special education to the extent this information is
             provided to the prosecution by the juvenile or by the
             court;

             (f) Degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
             juvenile;

             (g) Nature and extent of any prior history of
             delinquency of the juvenile and dispositions imposed
             for those adjudications;

                                                                             A-3434-22
                                       11
            (h) If the juvenile previously served a custodial
            disposition in a State juvenile facility operated by the
            Juvenile Justice Commission, and the response of the
            juvenile to the programs provided at the facility to the
            extent this information is provided to the prosecution
            by the Juvenile Justice Commission;

            (i) Current or prior involvement of the juvenile with
            child welfare agencies;

            (j) Evidence of mental health concerns, substance
            abuse, or emotional instability of the juvenile to the
            extent this information is provided to the prosecution
            by the juvenile or by the court; and

            (k) If there is an identifiable victim, the input of the
            victim or victim's family.

            [N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3).]

      The statute includes a presumption in favor of waiver for juveniles who

commit serious acts, and the juvenile must overcome a "heavy burden" to defeat

a waiver motion. Z.S., 464 N.J. Super. at 519 (citing State v. R.G.D., 108 N.J.

1, 12 (1987)). Also, the standard of review of the prosecutor's waiver decision

is deferential. Ibid. The Family Part must "uphold the decision unless it is

'clearly convinced that the prosecutor abused [her or] his discretion in

considering' the enumerated statutory factors." Ibid. Moreover, the family court

may not substitute its judgment for that of the prosecutor. State in the Int. of

V.A., 212 N.J. 1, 8 (2012). Instead, the court conducts a limited, yet substantive,

                                                                             A-3434-22
                                       12
review to ensure that the prosecutor has made an individualized decision about

the juvenile that was neither arbitrary nor abused the prosecutor's considerable

discretion. Ibid.; see also N.H., 226 N.J. at 255 (explaining that "the prosecutor's

decision to seek waiver is subject to review—at the hearing—for abuse of

discretion").

      As explained by our Supreme Court in In re State ex rel. A.D., appellate

review of a juvenile waiver decision requires a determination of whether the

trial court's findings of fact are "grounded in competent, reasonably credible

evidence" and whether the trial court applied the "correct legal principles." 212

N.J. 200, 214-15 (2012) (quoting R.G.D., 108 N.J. at 15). Moreover, "the

judicial power to modify a trial court's exercise of discretion will be applied only

when there is a clear error of judgment that shocks the judicial conscience." Id.

at 215 (quoting R.G.D., 108 N.J. at 15).

                                         II.

      M.P. primarily contends that the court erred in finding the State did not

abuse its discretion when it chose not to respond to his "extensive mitigation

evidence in writing prior to the waiver hearing and by failing to ascribe specific

weight to several of the waiver factors[,]" thereby depriving M.P. of procedural

due process. M.P. cites State in the Interest of Z.S. in support of this proposition,

                                                                              A-3434-22
                                        13
arguing that, "Z.S. requires prosecutors to respond to the juvenile's mitigating

evidence in writing, even if the juvenile submits mitigation evidence after the

prosecutor submitted an initial statement of reasons . . . ."

      The State disputes this contention and maintains that there is no

affirmative statutory or legal requirement that the State respond to each and

every submission made by the juvenile prior to the waiver hearing. The State

also challenges M.P.'s reliance on Z.S., arguing Z.S. is factually distinguishable

because the court in Z.S. found "critical procedural deficiencies . . ." that are not

present here. Moreover, the State relies on Z.S. for the proposition that the

prosecutor's detailed statement of reasons for waiver satisfies the State's

obligation under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1 to provide a written statement of reasons

supporting its waiver decision. See Z.S., 464 N.J. Super. at 533 (holding the

"sufficiency of the prosecutor's written statement of reasons" is assessed based

on whether the State considered "all of the statutory factors and the

circumstances fully and not arbitrarily"). The State also maintains that the

prosecutor squarely addressed the IEPs and mitigating evidence on mental

health and substance abuse in making the waiver decision.

      Our review of juvenile waiver cases is limited to "whether the correct legal

standard has been applied, whether inappropriate factors have been considered,

                                                                              A-3434-22
                                        14
and whether the exercise of discretion constituted a 'clear error of judgment'"

under all the circumstances. State in the Int. of J.F., 446 N.J. Super. 39, 51-52

(App. Div. 2016) (quoting R.G.D., 108 N.J. at 15); see also A.D., 212 N.J. at

215 (internal citation omitted).

      Because both parties rely on Z.S. to support their respective arguments, a

discussion of Z.S. is warranted.      In Z.S., the juvenile's counsel became

hospitalized with pneumonia a week before the scheduled waiver hearing and

was only medically cleared and released a mere two days before the hearing.

464 N.J. Super. at 527.        Because of her condition, counsel sought an

adjournment of the waiver hearing with the consent of the State, but the court

denied counsel's request. Ibid. We considered the juvenile's appeal of the

court's waiver determination and reversed. We concluded that the prosecutor's

two statements of reasons supporting the waiver motion were deficient because

the prosecutor's initial statement of reasons was based on an "improvised"

form—which the Attorney General's office noted was not one that was used by

any other county—that failed to address all eleven factors required by the

amended waiver statute, and the prosecutor had failed to address certain factors.

See N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)(a)–(k). With respect to the prosecutor's amended

statement of reasons, which amounted to a two-page supplemental brief, we also

                                                                           A-3434-22
                                      15
deemed that filing to be "materially deficient," because it did not "explain why

Z.S.'s special education status and IEP plan [were] immaterial or insignificant."

Id. at 541-42. Moreover, we considered that the two-page supplemental brief

containing the amended statement of reasons was received by defense counsel

only one day before defense counsel was hospitalized with pneumonia. Id. at

526-27.

      It is against that backdrop that we held there were two independent

grounds for reversal, "grave procedural shortcomings"—the denial of counsel's

adjournment request though seriously ill—which is not an issue here, and the

deficient quality of the prosecutor's reasoning for waiver—which is an issue here

because of the prosecutor's failure to provide a written assessment of all the

statutory factors even after being supplied with information allowing the

prosecutor to do so. See id. at 543-44. We also offered guidance on how best

to proceed in waiver matters and emphasized that the prosecutor's statement of

reasons must be detailed and cannot "simply mirror the statutory language in a

cursory fashion," id. at 533 (quoting N.H., 226 N.J. at 250), "cannot be

incomplete or superficial" or make "conclusory assertions that are devoid of

analysis," and "[n]o one factor . . . may be treated as dispositive," while the

                                                                           A-3434-22
                                      16
decision as to how much weight to accord each statutory factor remains vested

in the discretion of the prosecutor, id. at 534.

      The State does not dispute that in its initial statement of reasons, it

considered and weighed only those factors for which it had available evidence,

explicitly noting that, at the time of its filing, it had no information concerning

M.P.'s special education classification—which is relevant under factor (e) of

N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)—or any evidence of mental health concerns,

substance abuse, or emotional instability—which is pertinent under factor (j) of

the statute. Indeed, in its written statement of reasons, the State expressly stated

it could not assess those factors due to its lack of information pertinent to them.

      Approximately nine months after the prosecutor's motion and two months

before the waiver hearing, counsel for M.P. served the State with a forensic

expert report, educational records, and IEPs from various schools M.P. had

attended. Upon its receipt of the information, the State for the first time had

information permitting it to assess factors (e) and (j). However, instead of filing

a written assessment of them in response to the newly served expert report, IEPs

and other proofs, the State waited until the conclusion of the waiver hearing to

orally address M.P.'s mitigating evidence during its summation.

                                                                              A-3434-22
                                        17
      M.P. contends that had the prosecutor provided a written response to his

expert's report and other proofs, including his ADHD and chronic depression

diagnoses, he would have had the benefit of the State's view of this evidence and

the weight to be accorded to all of the factors prior to the waiver hearing and,

thus, would have been better prepared to respond to the prosecutor's arguments.

      We discern from M.P.'s arguments that evidence of his educational,

mental health, and familial challenges were to be used to persuade the prosecutor

against waiver, and conclude that as in Z.S., "the prosecutor's attempt at the

waiver hearing to cover omitted ground orally did not cure the problem[,]" of

the State's failure to respond to the mitigating evidence in writing prior to the

hearing. Id. at 543. We also conclude that the State's decision to wait until it

gave its summation to address M.P.'s mitigating evidence was particularly

egregious because it left M.P. without any opportunity to respond to the State's

arguments and assessment of the all the statutory factors.

      We discern no error in the State's decision to pursue waiver and the timely

filing of its waiver motion and statement of reasons based on the information it

had available at the time while acknowledging there were statutory factors—

N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)(e) and (j)—that could not be assessed or weighed

based on a lack of information.        In fact, and as noted, the prosecutor

                                                                           A-3434-22
                                      18
acknowledged in the written statement of reasons that she could not examine

and weigh factors (e) and (j) because of a dearth of pertinent information

regarding M.P.'s eligibility for special education, mental health and substance

abuse concerns, and emotional instability.

      Indeed, the statute contemplates that information may be provided to the

prosecution by the juvenile to fill-in any gaps pertinent to these factors with

information not yet known to the prosecutor—the exact circumstances presented

here. Factor (e) requires consideration of the juvenile's eligibility for special

education and provides "[a]ny classification that the juvenile is eligible for

special education to the extent this information is provided to the prosecution

by the juvenile or by the court."       N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)(e) (emphasis

added). Similarly, factor (j) refers to "[e]vidence of mental health concerns,

substance abuse, or emotional instability of the juvenile to the extent this

information is provided to the prosecution by the juvenile or by the court [.]"

N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3)(j) (emphasis added). The language of both factors

(e) and (j) makes clear that there will be instances where additional information

will be provided to the prosecutor even after the filing of the initial statement of

reasons.

                                                                              A-3434-22
                                        19
      Here, upon receipt of M.P.'s expert's report, IEP, and educational records,

the prosecutor incorrectly decided not to provide a written amended statement

of reasons assessing and weighing M.P.'s newly served expert report and

mitigating evidence, arguing instead that the State would respond during the

waiver hearing. This decision is contrary to the holding in Z.S., which requires

"written, not just oral, statements of reasons," and explains "[t]hat disclosure

gives the defense a fair opportunity to make strategic decisions, such as perhaps

obtaining supplemental expert reports that may persuade a prosecutor's office to

reconsider its decision to seek waiver or calling witnesses at the hearing to

buttress the defense's position." 464 N.J. Super. at 543. Additionally, Z.S. is

unequivocal in its holding that "[o]ral argument should not be the first time the

defense learns of the prosecutor's reasons, particularly in this context that is such

a crucial event in the charged minor's life." Id. at 519.

      We conclude that under the circumstances presented here, the waiver

statute and Z.S. required that the State file an amended statement of reasons

addressing the statutory factors it initially stated it could not assess base d on its

lack of information after the pertinent information was provided by M.P. In its

failure to assess those factors after receiving the information and provide an

amended written statement of reasons after its assessment of those factors, the

                                                                               A-3434-22
                                        20
prosecutor did not weigh all of the enumerated factors as required by the waiver

statute and, thus, deprived M.P. of a fair opportunity to prepare for the waiver

hearing and make strategic decisions to respond to the prosecutor's evaluation

of its evidence. We further conclude, based on the unique circumstances of this

case, that the Family Part judge erred by finding that the prosecutor did not abuse

her discretion by failing to serve an amended written statement of reasons

assessing and weighing factors (e) and (j), and by offering the State's assessment

and weighing of those factors for the first time during closing arguments. On

this basis, we vacate the prior order and remand for the State to file an amended

written statement of reasons addressing M.P.'s expert report and mitigating

evidence.

                                        III.

      M.P. contends that the prosecutor's weighing of certain factors was

deficient or improper, averring that she improperly: weighed factor (e) against

waiver at the conclusion of the waiver hearing despite the extensive, unrebutted

evidence of his eligibility for special education; discounted the unrebutted

evidence of his mental illness for factors (d) and (j), focusing instead on the fact

that M.P. knew right from wrong; relied on dismissed and pending juvenile

charges in assessing factor (g); gave no clear weighing on factor (h); and did not

                                                                              A-3434-22
                                        21
include an identifiable victim as to factor (k). These contentions, however, were

flatly rejected by the State.

      Because we vacate and remand this matter for the State to serve an

amended written statement of reasons based upon M.P.'s submissions and the

evidence adduced at the waiver hearing, we do not address the merits of M.P.'s

arguments as to the weight accorded to each of the statutory factors addressed

by the State in its initial statement of reasons. In fact, on remand, we do not

limit the State's consideration or re-weighing of any of the statutory factors in

light of M.P.'s expert report and mitigating evidence. Additionally, the Family

Part judge shall review the State's consideration of all of the factors in light of

M.P.'s evidence and discuss the weight accorded to each of the statutory factors

consistent with the waiver statute and this opinion.

      In reaching this conclusion, we do not hold that a prosecutor must provide

a written amended statement of reasons each time a juvenile submits additional

information in response to a waiver motion. Rather, we conclude only that

where the State is unable to assess a statutory factor in its initial written

statement of reasons due to a lack of available information, it must amend its

written statement of reasons supporting waiver to address the statutory factor

after the information is obtained or timely made available.

                                                                             A-3434-22
                                       22
      For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the court's order granting the State's

waiver motion and remand for further proceedings. The State shall provide an

amended written statement of reasons supporting its waiver decision, and the

court shall consider whether there is a need for a further evidentiary hearing to

address the State's motion. The court shall conduct such proceedings as it deems

appropriate and decide the motion on the record, including the prior hearing,

presented by the parties.     Our decision to remand the matter shall not be

construed as an expression of an opinion concerning the merits.

      We discern no basis to grant M.P.'s request that this matter must be

remanded to a different judge. The judge presented a thorough review of the

factors and expressed no opinions that would suggest "a commitment to [her]

findings." Carmichael v. Bryan, 310 N.J. Super. 34, 49 (App. Div. 1998). Nor

did the judge engage in comments regarding credibility. Freedman v. Freedman,

474 N.J. Super. 291, 308 (App. Div. 2023) (citing J.L. v. J.F., 317 N.J. Super.

418, 438 (App. Div. 1999)). Accordingly, M.P.'s request is denied.

      Vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We

do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                           A-3434-22
                                      23