OAK KNOLL VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.VS. CHRIS ANN JAYE(DC-004807-15, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4942-15T3

Defendant Yeimy Acosta was indicted on multiple gambling-related offenses after police found betting slips, lottery slips, currency, and a computer at the copy shop where she worked; she was the only employee present when arrested and admitted knowing the operation was illegal.
Defendant applied for PTI; the County Criminal Division Manager (PTI Director) denied admission citing prior arrests/convictions and that PTI was unlikely to deter future criminal conduct.
The prosecutor concurred in the denial, citing the offense nature, facts, public interest, a pattern of anti-social behavior, and defendant’s criminal record per N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12 factors.
Defendant sought judicial review; the trial judge overrode the prosecutor, ordered PTI admission, finding the prosecutor erred by overemphasizing criminal history and not crediting defendant’s post-arrest conduct (employment, childcare, acceptance of responsibility).
The Appellate Division reversed: it held the prosecutor failed to consider all relevant facts (post-arrest conduct) and remanded for reconsideration, but concluded admission to PTI was not the correct remedy because the prosecutor’s omission required reconsideration, not immediate judicial substitution of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly ordered PTI over prosecutor's objection	Prosecutor argues denial was supported by statutory PTI factors and not a patent and gross abuse of discretion	Defendant argues she is amenable to rehabilitation given employment, childcare, and acceptance of responsibility	Appellate court: prosecutor failed to consider post-arrest rehabilitative factors; reversal of PTI admission and remand for prosecutor to reassess — but judicial admission was improper absent patent & gross abuse
Standard of review for PTI denial	State: reviewing judge must find a "patent and gross" abuse to override prosecutor	Defendant: judge can admit if prosecutor's reasons are deficient	Court: confirms high deference to prosecutor; judge may override only for patent & gross abuse; here abuse not shown
Proper remedy when prosecutor omits relevant factors	State: no abuse; order should be affirmed	Defendant: omission justifies PTI admission	Court: remedy is remand for prosecutor to reconsider with omitted facts, not immediate PTI admission
Weight of defendant's criminal history vs. rehabilitative evidence	State: prior convictions and recent reoffending justify denial and favor probation	Defendant: completion of probation and recent employment support diversion	Court: prosecutor properly relied on criminal history and offense nature; but must also consider defendant's post-arrest changes when reassessing

State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611 (2015) (clarifies PTI standards and when judicial override is appropriate)
State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236 (1995) (prosecutorial discretion in PTI decisions and required considerations)
State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73 (2003) (scope of judicial review of PTI denials and relevant factors)
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576 (1996) (requires patent and gross abuse to override prosecutor)
State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507 (2008) (focus on individualized assessment of amenability to correction)
State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84 (1979) (defines abuse of discretion and "patent and gross" standard)
State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360 (1977) (deference to prosecutorial charging decisions)
State v. Purdy, 51 N.J. 303 (1968) (possession of betting slips as evidence of illegal betting)