State v. Bradley, 19 A.3d 479

Bozzi, a non-prosecuting private citizen, attempted to file disorderly persons simple assault charges against Bradley in Eastampton Municipal Court after a party incident.
Judge Bookbinder dismissed Bozzi’s Law Division appeal from the municipal court administrator’s decision not to issue the complaint on standing grounds.
Bozzi pursued the matter de novo to the Law Division; a separate municipal judge later found no probable cause for Bradley.
Bozzi did not seek intervention of the municipal or county prosecutor to review his complaint.
Bozzi argued various grounds, including that the ruling on probable cause was an abuse of discretion and that the administrator lacked authority to substitute for the municipal judge.
The Appellate Division held that Bozzi lacked standing to pursue the matter because only a prosecuting attorney may appeal or pursue prosecution under the Rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Bozzi have standing to appeal/prosecute?	Bozzi argues he pleads simple assault and should be able to appeal.	Bradley/State argues only a prosecuting attorney may appeal or pursue the matter.	Bozzi lacks standing; private citizens may not act as prosecutors.
Does Rule 3:23-9(d) permit private private prosecutors to act without consent?	Bozzi seeks broader interpretation to include private citizens.	Rule 3:23-9(d) requires prosecuting attorney designation and certification for a private prosecutor.	Private citizens cannot act as prosecuting attorneys without approval; standing not shown.
Is there a conflict with the Victims Rights Amendment or related notice obligations?	Bozzi cites rights to notice and recourse under the Victims Rights Amendment.	Victims’ rights do not authorize private prosecution.	No private right to prosecute; rights are to seek review by prosecutors.

Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (de novo standard and interpretation of law)
In re Loigman, 183 N.J. 133 (2005) (prosecutors’ ethics and fairness in process)
State v. Storm, 141 N.J. 245 (1995) (dynamics and propriety of private prosecutors)
State v. Vitello, 377 N.J. Super. 452 (App. Div. 2005) (state control over appeals by private parties)
Vitiello, 377 N.J. Super. 455 (App. Div. 2005) (standing principles for appealing dismissals)
State ex rel. Qarmout v. Cavallo, 340 N.J. Super. 365 (App. Div. 2001) (private citizen status in complaint proceedings)
Washington Commons, LLC v. City of Jersey City, 416 N.J. Super. 555 (App. Div. 2010) (de novo review and interpretation of law)
Zabilowicz v. Kelsey, 200 N.J. 507 (2009) (standing and appellate review principles)