State v. John Tate (072754)
106 A.3d 1195
| N.J. | 2015Background
- John Tate, a foster parent, pled guilty in 2009 to fourth-degree child abuse under N.J.S.A. 9:6-3/N.J.S.A. 9:6-1(d) for "the habitual use . . . in the hearing of [a] child, of profane, indecent or obscene language," in exchange for dismissal of more serious sexual-offense charges and a recommendation of time served.
- During the plea colloquy Tate admitted he had "cursed in [the child’s] presence" and used "off-color language," but was not asked to state the specific words used or the frequency of use.
- Tate later moved to vacate the plea for lack of an adequate factual basis; the trial court denied the motion under the Slater framework and sentenced him to time served. The Appellate Division affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certification to decide whether Tate’s allocution satisfied Rule 3:9-2 and the statutory elements of N.J.S.A. 9:6-1(d).
- The Court held the factual basis was inadequate because Tate did not admit the specific language required by the statute nor the required "habitual" use; the plea was vacated, indictment reinstated, and the case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tate) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Adequacy of factual basis under Rule 3:9-2 | Tate’s admissions that he cursed and used off-color language satisfied the elements of N.J.S.A. 9:6-1(d) | His colloquy did not identify the words or the element of "habitual" use, so it failed to establish every statutory element | Court: Vacated plea — allocution did not admit the specific proscribed language nor habitual use; Rule 3:9-2 requires facts for every element |
| 2. Whether court may rely on evidence outside plea colloquy to supply factual basis | Court may consider surrounding evidence (e.g., arrest affidavit, discovery) to establish factual basis | Factual basis must come from the defendant’s own admissions at plea; outside evidence cannot substitute for deficient allocution | Court: Rejects reliance on outside evidence for timely challenges; factual basis must be elicited from defendant at colloquy |
| 3. Construction of statutory terms "profane, indecent or obscene" and "habitual" | Those terms can be satisfied by admissions of "curse" or "off-color" language and context (three-month cohabitation implies habitual use) | Terms are ambiguous; ordinary meanings vary and the plea did not elicit actual words or frequency | Court: Words are ambiguous and fact-specific; without the actual words or a factual showing of habit, plea insufficient |
| 4. Standard of review; applicability of Slater factors | Appellate review should defer and consider Slater balancing | When adequacy of factual basis is sole issue, review is de novo and Slater is inapplicable | Court: De novo review for factual-basis adequacy; Slater applies only when plea is factually adequate but defendant later asserts innocence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565 (1992) (discussed use of "surrounding circumstances" but involved untimely post-conviction challenge)
- State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145 (2009) (framework for plea withdrawal when a defendant later claims innocence despite adequate factual basis)
- State v. Barboza, 115 N.J. 415 (1989) (trial court must be satisfied from defendant’s own statements that he committed the acts constituting the crime)
- State ex rel. T.M., 166 N.J. 319 (2001) (factual basis must include admissions for each statutory element, including mental state)
- State v. Campfield, 213 N.J. 218 (2013) (analyzing plea colloquy adequacy without invoking Slater)
- State v. Sainz, 107 N.J. 283 (1987) (factual basis must include defendant’s admission or acknowledgement of facts constituting essential elements)
- State v. Smullen, 118 N.J. 408 (1990) (trial court must be satisfied from the lips of the defendant that he committed the acts constituting the crime)
- Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366 (1995) (de novo review for legal questions including interpretation of rules/statutes)