STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHN HELLERÂ Â (06-04-0336, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-5819-13T4

Background

In 2006 a Union County grand jury indicted John Heller for aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, and endangering the welfare of a child based on an incident when Heller allegedly sexually assaulted a six‑year‑old he was babysitting.
Heller was convicted by a jury on all counts and sentenced to an aggregate term that included a 12‑year No Early Release Act term; conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
Heller filed a PCR petition renewing claims he raised on direct appeal: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or assert insanity/diminished‑capacity defenses and for failing to raise competency issues; Heller also claimed he was incompetent to testify and could not validly waive those defenses.
At the PCR evidentiary hearing, both trial attorneys (Spagnoli and Depa) testified that Heller and his family insisted on pursuing an alibi and either did not disclose psychiatric history or minimized it; counsel therefore did not pursue insanity/diminished‑capacity defenses or a competency inquiry.
The PCR judge credited trial counsel, discredited Heller’s mother, found Heller and his family actively discouraged mental‑health investigation, and denied relief as procedurally barred and on the merits under Strickland.
The Appellate Division affirmed: the issues were previously adjudicated (procedural bar) and, alternatively, counsel’s investigation and strategy were reasonable given the facts and the family’s representations. Relief was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or assert insanity defense	Counsel reasonably prioritized a workable alibi and were not told of relevant mental‑health history; failing to pursue insanity was tactical	Counsel failed to discover and assert insanity; investigative lapse prejudiced Heller	Denied — appellate court upheld PCR judge’s credibility findings and held counsel’s conduct reasonable under Strickland; arguments also procedurally barred as previously adjudicated
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or assert diminished‑capacity defense	Same as above: no basis shown because family discouraged inquiry and alibi was pursued	Counsel should have investigated diminished capacity and presented it to the jury	Denied — counsel’s strategic choice reasonable; no Strickland prejudice shown; issues previously litigated
Whether Heller was incompetent to stand trial or to testify	Record did not raise bona fide doubt; counsel observed Heller could assist his defense; no competent evidence of incompetence	Heller lacked competence (medication, mental illness, recent bereavement) and counsel should have raised it	Denied — court relied on trial counsels’ testimony and prior appellate ruling that record did not show bona fide doubt; PCR relief denied
Whether Heller validly waived insanity/diminished‑capacity defenses	Waiver was made in the context of family‑directed strategy and counsel’s advice; no evidence of invalid waiver	Even if competent to stand trial, Heller could not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily waive these defenses	Denied — court found waiver issues previously considered on direct appeal and insufficient to overcome Strickland/ procedural bar

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard; reasonableness and prejudice inquiry)
McQuaid v. State, 147 N.J. 464 (procedural bar where issue was previously adjudicated on the merits)
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (rule against relitigation of issues previously adjudicated)