STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DONOVAN L. HAYDENÂ (16-03-0353, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5084-15T3

Background

Defendant Hayden (26) was arrested after police, following a traffic stop for tailgating, saw a loaded .22 handgun in his car’s center console and charged him with second‑degree unlawful possession of a firearm (N.J.S.A. 2C:39‑5(b)).
Defendant applied for Pre‑Trial Intervention (PTI); the Criminal Division manager recommended acceptance based on lack of criminal history, employment, remorse, and belief he was not a danger to society.
The Hudson County Prosecutor rejected the PTI recommendation in a brief letter relying mainly on the fact the charge was second‑degree and asserting a presumption against PTI for such offenses and public‑safety concerns about firearms proliferation.
The trial court found the prosecutor had effectively applied a per se bar (citing the prosecutor’s arraignment statement that the State would oppose PTI) and ordered defendant admitted to PTI over the State’s objection.
The State appealed, arguing the prosecutor properly considered relevant factors and did not apply a per se rule; the Appellate Division reviewed whether the prosecutor’s statement of reasons satisfied statutory and Rule 3:28 requirements and whether any abuse of discretion was patent and gross.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hayden)	Held
Whether prosecutor applied an unlawful per se bar to PTI by statement at arraignment and terse rejection letter	Arraignment remark was not the rejection; rejection letter reflected lawful exercise of discretion based on offense gravity and deterrence needs	The arraignment remark plus the rejection letter show a preexisting, categorical refusal to consider defendant — a per se bar	No clear proof of an explicit per se policy from the record; per se bar not conclusively shown but closer scrutiny required
Whether prosecutor’s written statement of reasons complied with N.J.S.A. 2C:43‑12(f) and Rule 3:28 (individualized assessment, statutory factors)	The letter adequately reflected consideration of relevant factors and reasoned rejection under Guideline 3(i)	The letter was conclusory, failed to address most statutory factors and defendant’s amenability to rehabilitation	Rejection letter was deficient: prosecutor failed to make individualized assessment or address key statutory factors
Whether the prosecutor’s failure to provide adequate reasons constituted a patent and gross abuse of discretion justifying court‑ordered PTI admission	Even if terse, the decision was within prosecutorial discretion and not a clear error of judgment	Prosecutor’s conduct (and arraignment remark) amounted to per se denial or at least an abuse warranting admission	The record showed an abuse (failure to consider relevant factors) but not conclusively a per se rule; remand required for further consideration by court and prosecutor
Proper remedy where prosecutor’s statement is inadequate — remand vs. judicial admission to PTI	If prosecutor erred procedurally, remand should suffice; no basis to substitute court judgment	Court admission appropriate where error is patent and gross and would subvert PTI goals	Because deficiencies exist and reasonable remediation on remand is possible, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s immediate admission order and remanded for further proceedings (trial court to supplement findings and/or remand to prosecutor)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611 (2015) (prosecutor must assess amenability to correction; remedy standards for PTI denials)
State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507 (2008) (focus on amenability and responsiveness to rehabilitation)
State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236 (1995) (requirements for prosecutor’s statement of reasons; purposes of the statement)
State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434 (1997) (per se prosecutorial policies denying PTI are impermissible)
State v. Caliguiri, 158 N.J. 25 (1999) (Attorney General or office directives producing categorical PTI denials are invalid)
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576 (1996) (standard for reviewing PTI decisions; courts may check clear errors in prosecutorial weighting)
State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190 (2014) (remand to prosecutor appropriate where statement of reasons is inadequate)
State v. DeMarco, 107 N.J. 562 (1987) (courts may order admission to PTI when prosecutor commits clear error of judgment)
State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360 (1977) (deference to prosecutor’s PTI decisions but subject to review)