KEVIN JONES v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)
A-1241-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Mar 23, 2022Background
- Appellant Kevin Jones, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, was charged with prohibited act 256 (disobeying a direct order) after he became agitated during a scheduled interview, ignored repeated orders to remain seated, and walked out of the room.
- Staff officers witnessed or immediately investigated the incident; Jones was searched, handcuffed, medically cleared, and placed in pre-hearing detention. Sgt. Watters authored the disciplinary report after reviewing firsthand reports.
- The disciplinary hearing was postponed for a mental-health evaluation; Jones was given written notice, a counsel substitute, and the opportunity to call or confront witnesses. He initially requested confrontation but later rescinded the request and declined witness statements.
- The Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found Jones guilty based on corroborative staff reports and investigative findings, and imposed sanctions (loss of commutation, administrative segregation, suspension, and phone loss).
- The Assistant Superintendent upheld the DHO decision; Jones appealed to the Appellate Division raising confrontation, impartiality, insufficiency of evidence/hearsay, due-process, and cumulative-error claims.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the record contained substantial credible evidence and that procedural protections were provided; Jones’s rescission of his confrontation request and corroborative staff reports supported the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of confrontation | Jones says he was denied the right to confront his accusers under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.14(a). | DOC says Jones initially requested confrontation but expressly rescinded it; confrontation is provided only upon request. | Denial claim fails; Jones rescinded request so no deprivation occurred. |
| DHO impartiality / prosecutorial role | Jones contends DHO Cortes acted as prosecutor and did not conduct an impartial investigation. | DOC shows an investigation was done within 48 hours and DHO properly exercised discretion not to expand it. | No evidence of partiality; DHO acted within regulations. |
| Sufficiency of evidence / arbitrary & capricious | Jones argues the decision was arbitrary and not based on substantial credible evidence. | DOC points to corroborative reports from Officers Hunter, Legore, Sangale and Sgt. Bezek’s investigative report. | Substantial evidence supported the guilty finding; not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Hearsay / Sgt. Watters’ report | Jones argues Watters should be dismissed for not witnessing the incident and relying on hearsay. | DOC cites rule permitting a staff member with probable cause to prepare the report; Watters reviewed firsthand witness reports and was called to the scene. | Watkins’ report admissible as corroborated; hearsay did not form the sole basis for the finding. |
| Due process / procedural safeguards | Jones claims denial of due process and a fair, impartial hearing. | DOC notes Jones received written notice, counsel substitute, postponement for mental-health review, and offered witness/confrontation rights; sanctions considered mental-health history. | Due process protections were afforded; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malacow v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 457 N.J. Super. 87 (App. Div. 2018) (standards for appellate review of DOC disciplinary decisions)
- Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980) (agency decision reversal standard: arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence)
- Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div. 2010) (definition of substantial evidence in corrections context)
- In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358 (1961) (definition of substantial evidence: what a reasonable mind might accept)
- Weston v. State, 60 N.J. 36 (1972) (hearsay cannot alone support factfinding but may corroborate competent proof)
- McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995) (limited due-process protections for inmates)
- Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975) (due-process framework for prison disciplinary hearings)