State of New Jersey v. Alfred W. Coursey, III
139 A.3d 124
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2016Background
- Officers searched Coursey's residence and found 18 small bags of marijuana, cocaine, and about $500 in cash; Coursey was indicted for fourth-degree possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and third-degree possession of cocaine.
- Coursey moved to suppress evidence; the motion was denied.
- Coursey pleaded guilty to third-degree possession of cocaine and was sentenced to one year of probation.
- Coursey appealed the suppression denial and the prosecutor’s refusal to admit him into Pretrial Intervention (PTI).
- Prosecutor denied PTI based on Guideline 3(i)’s presumption against admission for non-addicts charged with sale/distribution of Schedule I or II narcotics; trial court affirmed.
- Appellate Division affirmed the suppression ruling but reversed the PTI denial, holding Guideline 3(i) was misapplied to non‑school‑zone third/fourth‑degree marijuana distribution charges and remanded for prosecutor reconsideration with opportunity for Coursey to present evidence of drug dependence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless arrest/search based on smell of marijuana (suppression) | State argued trooper’s conduct was lawful and suppression denial correct | Coursey argued smell alone did not authorize warrantless arrest/seizure | Court affirmed suppression denial (opinion Part I omitted in published version) |
| Prosecutor’s denial of PTI using Guideline 3(i) presumption | Prosecutor treated Coursey as ineligible because evidence indicated intent to distribute and lack of addiction | Coursey argued Guideline 3(i) does not cover ordinary 3rd/4th‑degree marijuana possession with intent to distribute; rejection was categorical error | Reversed: Guideline 3(i) was misapplied; remand for reconsideration ab initio |
| Whether possession with intent to distribute marijuana is a "sale/dispensing" under Guideline 3(i) | Prosecutor implicitly treated possession with intent as equivalent to sale/dispensing for presumption purposes | Coursey argued Guideline 3(i) targets sale/dispensing of Schedule I/II narcotics and does not encompass ordinary marijuana possession-with-intent charges | Court held Guideline 3(i) does not apply to ordinary 3rd/4th‑degree marijuana possession-with-intent; left broader statutory interpretation question for Criminal Practice Committee |
| Opportunity to present drug-dependence evidence for PTI eligibility | Prosecutor emphasized lack of addiction evidence | Coursey argued counsel failed to present dependency evidence and he should be allowed to do so on remand | Court instructed prosecutor to permit Coursey to submit evidence of drug dependency during reconsideration; noted dependency can be a key PTI factor |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Caliguiri, 158 N.J. 28 (Sup. Ct. 1999) (school‑zone marijuana distribution, treated as particularly serious and subject to Guideline 3(i) analysis)
- State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611 (2015) (misapplication of PTI guidelines can constitute gross and patent abuse of discretion)
- State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507 (2008) (Guideline 3(i) addresses serious or heinous crimes)
- State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84 (1979) (prosecutorial abuse of discretion in PTI decisions)
- State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330 (2012) (defendant may present additional information on PTI reconsideration)