STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ERIC GROETHING(3-15, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2335-15T1

Background

Off-duty Plainfield police officer Eric Groething and Nicholas Garret fought in their apartment building laundry room; the altercation was captured on security video and left Garret unconscious.
Groething reported the incident; Garret was initially charged with aggravated assault on an officer but charges were reduced and cross-complaints led to municipal prosecutions.
In municipal court both men were found guilty of the petty disorderly-persons offense of simple assault as a lesser-included "fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent" (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(3)); Groething was also convicted of harassment.
Both defendants sought de novo review in the Law Division. The Law Division acquitted Garret (finding he acted in self-defense), dismissed the harassment charge against Groething, but convicted Groething of the more serious disorderly-persons simple assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1)) and added anger-management/cultural-sensitivity requirements.
Groething appealed, arguing double jeopardy and that the Law Division could not convict him of a greater offense after the municipal court acquitted him of that offense. The Appellate Division agreed and reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Law Division could convict Groething of disorderly-persons simple assault after municipal court acquitted him of that offense but convicted him of a lesser petty disorderly-persons fighting-by-consent offense	Law (State) proceeded in Law Division to retry facts and found consent lacking as to Garret, justifying conviction of Groething for the greater offense	Groething argued double jeopardy / N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9 bars retrial/conviction of same statutory provision based on same facts once acquitted by municipal court (lesser-included conviction is an acquittal of the greater)	Reversed: conviction vacated; municipal-court acquittal of the greater offense bars subsequent conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-9(a) and double jeopardy principles
Whether Law Division properly substituted its credibility/element findings to convert a municipal petty disorderly-persons conviction into a superior-court disorderly-persons conviction	State contended the Law Division may make independent findings at a de novo review and thus correct municipal-court errors	Groething argued de novo review respects municipal-court acquittals of greater offenses and cannot subject defendant to greater jeopardy after acquittal	Held that while Law Division conducts de novo review, it cannot overturn an acquittal of the greater inclusive offense by convicting defendant of that offense once the municipal court had acquitted him of it; statute and double jeopardy prohibit that result

Key Cases Cited

State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138 (N.J. 2017) (describing Law Division de novo-review standards and limits)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368 (N.J. 2015) (prosecution burden remains beyond a reasonable doubt on de novo)
State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (N.J. 1964) (deference to municipal-court credibility findings on de novo)
State v. Ross, 189 N.J. Super. 67 (App. Div. 1983) (Law Division may conduct de novo but defers to municipal credibility)
State v. Yoskowitz, 116 N.J. 679 (N.J. 1989) (double-jeopardy focus on whether second prosecution is for the same offense)
State v. Myerowitz, 439 N.J. Super. 341 (App. Div. 2015) (private counsel acting as private prosecutor in cross-complaint context)