STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ROBERT NAHMÂ (15-10-0728, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4137-15T3

Background

Defendant Robert Nahm was stopped on March 21, 2015; a registration check revealed his driver’s license was suspended for prior DWI convictions (2010 and 2014). He was charged under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-26(b) (fourth-degree: operating during suspension for multiple DWI convictions) and N.J.S.A. 39:3-40 (driving while suspended).
Nahm applied for Pretrial Intervention (PTI); the vicinage criminal division manager recommended admission but the Gloucester County Prosecutor rejected the application in a one‑page letter citing statutory factors 1, 2, and 17 and the prior DWI convictions.
The prosecutor later submitted a detailed ten‑page letter to the trial court addressing all statutory PTI factors; the trial court held an appeal under the enhanced deference standard.
The Law Division denied Nahm’s motion to override the prosecutor’s rejection, finding the prosecutor provided a significant, individualized rationale and did not act with a patent and gross abuse of discretion.
Nahm pleaded guilty and received the mandatory 180‑day jail term (stayed pending appeal), fines, assessments, and a one‑year license suspension. He appealed only the denial of his PTI motion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Nahm)	Held
Whether the prosecutor’s PTI rejection was an impermissible per se exclusion	Prosecutor argued rejection was individualized, based on prior DWI convictions and risk to public safety; applicable factors were considered	Nahm argued the rejection was effectively categorical/per se, lacking individualized consideration and insufficient statement of reasons	Court held rejection was not per se; prosecutor provided a clear, individualized rationale and did not commit a patent and gross abuse of discretion
Whether the prosecutor’s initial one‑page letter violated the statement‑of‑reasons requirement	State relied on the later ten‑page submission and trial court’s review showing factor‑by‑factor consideration	Nahm argued initial letter was inadequate and failed to show individualized analysis, warranting remand or reversal	Court held the subsequent detailed letter and trial court review cured any initial deficiency; no remand required
Whether repetitive prior infractions (DWIs) are permissible grounds for PTI rejection	State argued prior DWIs and timing showed a pattern not amenable to rehabilitation and justified prosecution for public protection	Nahm argued motor‑vehicle matters should not be over‑weighted and that his facts (no accident, emergency circumstances) mitigated against denial	Court held prior DWI convictions and the pattern could properly be weighed as indicating anti‑social behavior and lack of amenability to PTI; public protection is a legitimate factor
Standard of judicial review for PTI rejections	State urged deference to prosecutorial charging discretion and that only patent and gross abuse warrants reversal	Nahm argued prosecutor exceeded discretion and failed to meet statutory obligations for reasons	Court reaffirmed enhanced deference: overturn only for patent and gross abuse; applied that standard and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84 (N.J. 1979) (defines limits on judicial review of prosecutorial PTI decisions)
State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236 (N.J. 1995) (PTI is tied to prosecutorial charging authority; prosecutor’s recommendation central)
State v. Negran, 178 N.J. 73 (N.J. 2003) (prosecutor’s wide but not unlimited PTI discretion; writing requirement for reasons)
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576 (N.J. 1996) (prosecutor must provide statement of reasons demonstrating careful consideration of factors)
State v. Rizzitello, 447 N.J. Super. 301 (App. Div. 2016) (describes defendant’s burden to show patent and gross abuse of discretion)
State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190 (N.J. 2015) (prosecutor required to consider statutory PTI criteria; remand may be appropriate if factors not considered)
State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611 (N.J. 2015) (reaffirms that courts may only override prosecutor when there is patent and gross abuse of discretion)