STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. VICTORIA L. MAJEWSKI(15-07-0573, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), 162 A.3d 1083

Background

Defendant Victoria Majewski, an inmate, was indicted under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-13 for fourth-degree aggravated assault for throwing bodily fluid (spit) that landed on a corrections officer during a move in the county jail.
Grand jury was instructed by the prosecutor using language describing the offense but the prosecutor did not expressly instruct the grand jurors that the State must prove the defendant acted "purposely" as to the officer.
Grand jury evidence consisted mainly of an investigator’s testimony that Majewski spat at another inmate and the spit landed on an officer; other inmate statements in discovery suggested Majewski intended to spit at the other inmate, not the officer.
Majewski moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute requires purposeful intent toward the officer (so transferred intent cannot elevate her conduct) and that the prosecutor failed to present clearly exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
The trial court denied the motion; Majewski subsequently pled guilty and received a one-year consecutive sentence.
On appeal the Appellate Division reversed, vacated the conviction, and dismissed the indictment without prejudice because the prosecutor failed to instruct the grand jury on the statute’s required culpable mental state (purposely) for the charged offense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:12-13 requires purposeful intent as to both "throwing" and "otherwise subjecting" an officer to contact with bodily fluid	Statute’s second clause ("otherwise purposely subjects") establishes purpose and transferred intent applies so indictment was proper	Statute requires purposeful intent as to the result; transferred intent cannot convert an act aimed at a different person into aggravated assault against the officer	The statute requires purposeful conduct for both clauses; transferred intent does not apply to elevate conduct to aggravated assault under this statute
Whether prosecutor misled grand jury by failing to instruct on the required culpability element	Prosecutor’s instruction was sufficient and evidence supported a prima facie case; no duty to present every potential defense	Prosecutor failed to charge a material element (purposely) to the grand jury, producing a palpably defective indictment	Grand jury was not properly charged on the mens rea element; omission was capable of producing an unjust result and warranted dismissal of the indictment
Whether prosecutor had duty to present clearly exculpatory evidence (inmate statements and disciplinary report) to grand jury	Inmate statements were not clearly exculpatory; prosecutor was not required to present them	Inmate statements and disciplinary report directly negate purposeful intent and arguably should have been presented	Appellate court declined to decide finally; found the statements directly negated purposeful intent but left assessment of whether they were "clearly exculpatory" to the trial court on any re-presentation
Remedy where grand jury was not properly instructed	Any error was harmless given plea and factual admissions	Indictment must be dismissed and conviction vacated	Court vacated conviction and dismissed indictment without prejudice to re-presenting the matter to a properly instructed grand jury

Key Cases Cited

State v. Lenihan, 219 N.J. 251 (interpretive principles; statutory language controls)
State v. Frye, 217 N.J. 566 (use of legislative history when statute ambiguous)
State v. McDonald, 211 N.J. 4 (doctrine of lenity where criminal statute ambiguous)
State ex rel. S.B., 333 N.J. Super. 236 (App. Div. 2000) (transferred intent analysis in assault context)
State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216 (prosecutor’s duty to present clearly exculpatory evidence to grand jury)
State v. Eldakroury, 439 N.J. Super. 304 (App. Div.) (dismissal where prosecutor misstates mens rea to grand jury)
State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39 (standard of review for dismissal of indictment)