STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. J.V. (13-12-1177, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0101-16

Background

In May 2013 a 17-year-old defendant stabbed a stranger multiple times during an attempted robbery; charged in juvenile court with offenses that, if committed by an adult, included first‑degree attempted murder and first‑degree robbery.
Prosecutor moved to waive juvenile court jurisdiction under the then‑existing statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26); Family Part granted waiver on October 23, 2013; defendant was later indicted, found competent after a hearing, pled guilty, and received concurrent 18‑year adult prison terms subject to the No Early Release Act.
At the waiver hearing the prosecutor relied on the Attorney General Juvenile Waiver Guidelines (2000) and found most factors supported waiver; defense counsel alerted the court to defendant’s intellectual impairment (IQ ~58), special education history, and suicide attempts in detention.
The new juvenile waiver statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1, repealing the old statute, was enacted in 2015 (effective March 1, 2016) and explicitly requires prosecutors to consider special‑education status and mental‑health evidence when seeking waiver.
The Appellate Division held the new waiver provision at issue, N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3) (including special education and mental‑health factors), is ameliorative and should be applied retroactively where the defendant was sentenced after the new law’s enactment; remanded for a new waiver determination under the new statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactivity of N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-26.1(c)(3) (new waiver factors)	Old waiver law governed; new law should not displace earlier waiver	New statute is ameliorative; applies retroactively and requires consideration of special‑education/mental‑health evidence	New waiver factors apply retroactively here; remand for prosecutor to decide whether to proceed under new statute and for Family Part to reconsider waiver with opportunity to present mental‑health/special‑ed evidence
Prosecutor abused discretion in seeking waiver under old statute	Waiver was supported by Guidelines factors (premeditation, weapon use, gravity of harm, likelihood of conviction)	Prosecutor overemphasized premeditation and failed to account for defendant’s cognitive/mental disabilities	Court did not expressly find abuse of discretion; remanded for reconsideration under the new statute (no final ruling on abuse)
Use of defendant’s mental‑health/cognitive deficits at sentencing	Court may consider all relevant factors (aggravating and mitigating)	Mental deficits should mitigate juvenile culpability; cannot be used to aggravate without strong expert proof	Court directed that mental health deficits may be used only as mitigation, not aggravation, absent convincing expert testimony that the deficits undermine deterrence
Sentence challenge / Miller considerations for youth	Sentence imposed under plea was lawful	Sentence is manifestly excessive; failed to account for youth/Miller factors and defendant’s disabilities	Appellate court did not order resentencing now; emphasized Miller concerns and suggested psychological evaluation if resentencing occurs after any adult conviction

Key Cases Cited

State in the Interest of J.F., 446 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div. 2016) (held portions of amended juvenile waiver statute are ameliorative and applied retroactively)
State in the Interest of N.H., 226 N.J. 242 (2016) (Supreme Court directed waiver hearings proceed under new statute and required full discovery before waiver)
State in the Interest of C.F., 444 N.J. Super. 179 (App. Div. 2016) (discusses savings statute and pipeline application for enactments affecting penalties)
State v. Nayee, 192 N.J. 475 (2007) (mental health may be considered as mitigating factor)
State v. R.G.D., 108 N.J. 1 (1987) (describes significance and standard for juvenile waiver proceedings)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; requires consideration of youth factors)