State v. DIORIO, 29 A.3d 347

The State charged Diorio and Fava in a six-count indictment alleging conspiracy, theft by deception, money laundering, misconduct by a corporate official, and witness tampering related to Packed Fresh Produce (PFP) operations.
Fava pleaded guilty to related offenses; Diorio proceeded to trial between January and February 2008 with several charges dismissed or merged.
Proffer sessions occurred January 9 and February 13, 2002; sessions were not recorded and Nolan’s contemporaneous notes were destroyed in 2003.
Defendant claimed there was an oral plea agreement prior to the proffers; the court found no meeting of the minds and concluded proffers were not plea negotiations.
Evidence showed a bust-out scheme by PFP with cash deposits and check transfers linking Diorio and Fava to the scheme; fourteen suppliers were unpaid, with January 2000 last shipments.
Trial court merged counts and imposed a 22-year total sentence plus five years’ parole ineligibility and nearly $2 million restitution; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counts 2–4 are time-barred by the statute of limitations.	Diorio contends the five-year limit expired for late charges.	Counts 2–4 should have been dismissed as time-barred.	Counts 2–4 not time-barred; continuation/last theft concept applies.
Whether the State must specifically perform an alleged oral plea agreement.	Plaintiff argues no enforceable oral agreement existed.	Diorio relied on promises of probation in exchange for proffers.	No enforceable oral plea agreement; no meeting of the minds.
Whether the trial court should have ordered a hearing to reconstruct proffer sessions.	Reconstruction needed to challenge trial evidence.	Record was insufficient without transcripts of proffers.	No reversible error; the court permitted derivative-use and found independent State sources.
Whether a Kastigar-type hearing was required.	State tainted by immunized or proffer-derived information.	Cites need for Kastigar due to compelled testimony.	Not required; defendant was not compelled to proffer.
Whether the post-trial rulings on motions for a new trial and acquittal were proper.	Challenges to trial rulings were improper or insufficient.	Sought new trial and acquittal on count three.	Rulings affirmed; record supports denial.

State v. Barone, 147 N.J. 599 (1997) (scope of appellate review for independence of State's evidence)
State v. Johnson, 199 N.J. 186 (1964) (standard for sufficiency and credibility of trial findings)
State v. Taylor, 80 N.J. 353 (1979) (plea bargaining is a mutuality requiring a meeting of the minds)
State v. Means, 191 N.J. 610 (2007) (mutuality and the need for writing in plea agreements)
State v. Smith, 306 N.J. Super. 370 (App. Div. 1997) (contract-like nature of plea agreements; requirements for enforceability)
Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984) (Supreme Court on plea bargaining and mutual reliance)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (Kastigar hearing burden and immunized testimony considerations)