STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF N.P. (FJ-20-0906-18, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3285-18

Background

Juvenile complaints charged N.P. (Neal) with multiple sexual offenses against his half‑sisters: third‑degree criminal sexual contact, first‑degree aggravated sexual assault (victim under 13), and two counts of child endangerment. The Family Part adjudicated Neal delinquent on all counts.
Victims: Nora (born 2002) and Nadine (born 2004). Alleged abuse occurred at their grandmother Danielle’s home beginning when the girls were children; incidents spanned several years.
Key out‑of‑court disclosures: Nora told friend Betty shortly after an incident in early 2014 and later told her mother Quinn; Nadine told Quinn in February 2018 after earlier alleged abuse years before.
At a Rule 104 hearing the court admitted Nora’s and Nadine’s statements as fresh complaints (the State conceded tender‑years was wrongly applied because the record didn’t show the victims were under twelve when they made the statements).
Trial: Nora, Nadine, and Betty testified in detail about multiple abusive incidents; the court found their testimony credible, adjudicated Neal delinquent, and imposed a suspended one‑year sentence with three years of sex‑offender‑specific probation and treatment.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Neal's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Nora’s and Nadine’s out‑of‑court statements	Statements were admissible as fresh complaints to explain delay and negate fabrication inference	Statements were not timely, not shown to be voluntary fresh complaints; tender‑years not satisfied	Admitted as fresh complaints; court did not rely on tender‑years; fresh‑complaint admission was within discretion
Use of statements as substantive corroboration	Statements only used to negate inference from delay; conviction rested on victims’ credible live testimony	Statements impermissibly bolstered substantive proof and required tender‑years to be used substantively	Court relied on victims’ detailed testimony, not on the hearsay statements for substantive corroboration; no reversible error
Prosecutor eliciting Quinn’s opinion and prior‑complaint testimony	Questions were permissible lay opinion/benign background	Quinn’s testimony improperly bolstered credibility and was opinion/character evidence	Testimony was improper bolstering but harmless; overwhelming credible evidence supported adjudication
Sequestration of legal guardian Danielle	Sequestration appropriate because Danielle might testify and Neal was an adult at trial	Rule 5:20‑4 gives guardian right to be present in juvenile proceedings regardless of subject’s age; removal was reversible error	Sequestration not reversible error; guardian’s right depends on fact‑specific custody/control relationship and circumstances at trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. R.K., 220 N.J. 444 (2015) (fresh‑complaint rule cannot be used to prove sexual‑assault charges; tender‑years exception permits substantive use)
State v. Hill, 121 N.J. 150 (1990) (factors for voluntariness of complaint and limits on admission after coercive interrogation)
State v. W.B., 205 N.J. 588 (2011) (delay in reporting can negate fresh‑complaint admissibility; courts scrutinize lengthy delays)
State v. Cope, 224 N.J. 530 (2016) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary admissibility)
State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534 (2004) (improper bolstering may be harmless where evidence of guilt is substantial)
State ex rel. V.M., 363 N.J. Super. 529 (App. Div. 2003) (guardian‑presence rule in juvenile proceedings; sequestration can be harmful when juvenile’s interest in support is implicated)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (1999) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility findings)