State Ex Rel. Va, 21 A.3d 619

Four juveniles (V.A., T.H., M.R., C.T.) aged 15–16 were charged with second-degree aggravated assault, first-degree robbery, and second-degree conspiracy arising from a November 8, 2009 assault/robbery in Woodbridge Township.
The State moved to waive all four juveniles to the Law Division for adult prosecution on December 3, 2009, supported by seven factors from the Attorney General's Juvenile Waiver Guidelines.
The Family Part judge found probable cause for three offenses (robbery, aggravated assault, conspiracy) but concluded the waiver decision was a patent and gross abuse of discretion and denied waiver, keeping all four juveniles in Family Part.
On appeal, the State challenged the judge’s bias and misapplication of the waiver framework; the juveniles defended the judge’s concern about waivers and argued proper deference to prosecutor decisions.
The Appellate Division held the judge abused his discretion by injecting personal views and misapplying the law, reversed, and remanded to either grant waiver for V.A., M.R., C.T. or provide rehabilitation hearing for T.H., with directions to assign a different judge for T.H.’s hearing.
The opinion notes a related, separate 2011 decision (state of J.M., A.M., L.L. and C.S.) reversing a similar denial of waiver based on judge bias.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the waiver decision was a patent and gross abuse of discretion.	State contends there was probable cause and proper articulation of seven factors.	V.A., M.R., C.T. argue judge bias and misapplication of guidelines.	Waiver decision was not properly supported; reversal and remand.
Whether the judge’s personal views invalidated the waiver ruling.	State argues deference to prosecutor discretion; rationale within guidelines.	Judge’s anti-waiver stance contaminated analysis.	Judge impermissibly let personal views color the legal analysis.
Whether prosecutors complied with seven Guideline factors in waiver filings.	Prosecutor provided written reasons addressing the seven factors.	Record showed failure to articulate beyond personal views.	Prosecutor’s reasons did not demonstrate patent and gross abuse; remand.
Whether the court should have required risk assessment or considered collateral consequences.	Guidelines do not require extra risk assessment features; waiver should be based on objective factors.	Judge wrongly demanded non-guideline considerations.	Not required by Guidelines; error to import extra factors.
Whether the rehabilitation rights of T.H. (less than 16) were properly considered.	T.H. entitled to rehabilitation hearing if rehabilitation probability outweighed waiver reasons.	Must proceed under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26(e) with rehabilitation inquiry.	T.H. entitled to rehabilitation hearing; other three remanded for waiver.

State v. J.M., 182 N.J. 402 (2005) (probable-cause and age-based waiver framework; automatic waiver for 16+)
State v. Read, 397 N.J. Super. 598 (App. Div. 2009) (prosecutor’s written reasons; guidelines-based review)
State in the Interest of R.C., 351 N.J. Super. 248 (App. Div. 2002) (guidelines-based deference to prosecutorial waiver decisions)
State v. Brown, 118 N.J. 595 (1990) (governing standard of review for legal conclusions by trial courts)
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576 (1996) (patent and gross abuse of discretion standard in PTI-like review)
State in the Interest of A.D., 420 N.J. Super. 144 (App. Div. 2011) (waiver decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; importance of proper legal framework)