State v. G.E.P State v. R.P. State v. C.P. State v. C.K.(082732)(Morris, Bergen, Gloucester, Camden County & Statewide), A-4-19

Four defendants (G.E.P., R.P., C.P., C.K.) were convicted of child-sexual-abuse crimes in trials where the State presented expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). CSAAS describes five purported behaviors: secrecy, helplessness, entrapment/accommodation, delayed/conflicted/unconvincing disclosure, and retraction.
In State v. J.L.G. (decided while these appeals were pending), the New Jersey Supreme Court held CSAAS lacks sufficient scientific reliability for expert testimony except for narrowly tailored testimony about delayed disclosure.
The Appellate Division applied J.L.G. with "pipeline retroactivity" (i.e., to cases on direct appeal) and reversed all four convictions on the ground that CSAAS admission undermined their verdicts.
On further review, the Supreme Court (Solomon, J.) held J.L.G. announced a new rule and that pipeline retroactivity was appropriate: the rule’s purpose favored retroactivity, the State had acted in good-faith reliance on prior precedent, and the administrative burden was limited (~40 cases).
Applying the standard for reversal, the Court found the CSAAS admission harmless in G.E.P.’s trial (significant corroboration: recorded call and seized items), reinstating his convictions; but for R.P., C.P., and C.K. the CSAAS evidence materially bolstered otherwise largely testimonial cases, so those reversals were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether J.L.G. announced a new rule invalidating most CSAAS expert testimony	State contended prior jurisprudence supported admissibility and reliance was reasonable	Defendants argued J.L.G. did announce a new rule limiting CSAAS	Court: Yes — J.L.G. announced a new rule: CSAAS expert testimony generally inadmissible except narrowly for delayed disclosure
Appropriate retroactivity for J.L.G. (prospective, pipeline, or full retroactivity)	State urged prospective (or limited) application due to reliance and burden	Defendants urged pipeline (or complete) retroactivity to avoid unfair convictions	Court: Pipeline retroactivity is appropriate
Application of Henderson retroactivity factors (purpose, reliance, administration of justice)	State emphasized heavy reliance on prior decisions and survivors’ hardship from retrials	Defendants emphasized rule’s truth‑finding purpose and limited systemic burden	Court: Purpose favors retroactivity; State acted in good faith; administrative impact is manageable → supports pipeline retroactivity
Whether CSAAS admission required reversal in these four cases	State: admissions were harmless in light of other evidence (esp. G.E.P.)	Defendants: CSAAS testimony improperly bolstered victims and was plain error	Court: Harmless as to G.E.P. (recorded call, seized items, corroboration) — convictions reinstated; reversible as to R.P., C.P., C.K. — Appellate Division reversals affirmed

State v. J.L.G., 234 N.J. 265 (2018) (held CSAAS lacks sufficient scientific reliability for expert testimony except limited delayed-disclosure testimony)
State v. J.Q., 130 N.J. 554 (1993) (initially approved limited use of CSAAS to describe victim traits)
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (sets three-factor test for retroactivity)
State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233 (1996) (describes retroactivity options: prospective, pipeline, complete)
State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394 (1981) (discusses circumstances warranting complete retroactivity)
State v. Feal, 194 N.J. 293 (2008) (new-rule test; sudden repudiation standard)
State v. Mohammed, 226 N.J. 71 (2016) (harmful-error standard review)
State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409 (1997) (plain-error standard — errors capable of producing unjust result)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (standard for determining whether error raised reasonable doubt about verdict)