276 A.3d 1099
N.J.2022Background
- Marcus Mackroy‑Davis was arrested Nov. 11, 2019 for a fatal drive‑by shooting; detained Dec. 23, 2019 after a detention hearing and indicted Feb. 13, 2020 on murder, conspiracy, and obstruction charges.
- The Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) provides timing limits for detained defendants: release if not indicted within 90 days, release if trial not commenced within 180 days of indictment, and a two‑year cap (release unless the prosecutor is "ready to proceed").
- COVID‑19 prompted fourteen statewide Supreme Court omnibus orders tolling the 180‑day clock (totaling 461 days) and materially reduced courtroom capacity, producing a backlog and ~6,000 detained defendants awaiting trial.
- Burlington County returned a superseding indictment Oct. 21, 2021 adding assault charges based on information obtained May 2020; the trial court later entered additional excludable‑time orders and set trial for April 22, 2022.
- On Jan. 3, 2022 (the two‑year cap date), the State told the court it was "trial ready"; defendant argued continued detention violated the CJRA and sought release. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, finding no statutory violation because the State declared readiness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two‑year cap / "ready to proceed" standard | Prosecutor’s on‑the‑record statement of readiness suffices to avoid release; pandemic delays are excludable | Courtrooms unavailable due to pandemic do not satisfy CJRA—if court cannot try case, defendant must be released after two years | No statutory violation: State declared it was ready at the two‑year mark; Court requires clearer record and directs a 30‑day pre‑cap readiness hearing plus other supervisory measures |
| Sua sponte exclusion of time | Courts may enter excludable‑time orders sua sponte (Supreme Court did so during COVID) | Trial court lacked authority to exclude time on its own and denied meaningful opportunity to object | Trial courts may enter sua sponte orders where statute/rule permit; parties ordinarily should be given chance to be heard and the order must rest on appropriate grounds |
| Superseding indictment effect on 180‑day clock | Superseding indictment can extend time for trial | Superseding indictment does not automatically restart the clock if underlying info was previously available | Superseding indictments do not automatically reset 180 days; courts must scrutinize differences and when underlying information was available per Rule 3:25‑4(f) |
| Interlocutory appeals (motions for leave to appeal) tolling time | Motions for leave to appeal are "motions" under CJRA and thus exclude time | Tolling for interlocutory review improperly prolongs detention and should be curtailed | Motions for leave to appeal are excludable under the statute; Appellate Division must expedite such applications (decide motion in 5 days; if granted, resolve merits within 5 days after briefs) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Robinson, 229 N.J. 44 (2017) (background on CJRA replacing cash bail with risk‑based detention and speedy‑trial framework)
- In re Request to Release Certain Pretrial Detainees, 245 N.J. 218 (2021) (addressing CJRA timing and pandemic effects; due‑process framework for prolonged detention)
- State v. Vega‑Larregui, 246 N.J. 94 (2021) (rejection of challenges to virtual grand juries)
- State v. Washington, 453 N.J. Super. 164 (App. Div. 2018) (motions as excludable time under the CJRA)
- State v. D.F.W., 468 N.J. Super. 422 (App. Div. 2021) (permitting courts to require assurances supporting prosecutor’s readiness)
- United States v. Andrews, 790 F.2d 803 (10th Cir. 1986) (federal analogy that superseding charges that merely "gild" the original charge may not justify more time)
- United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628 (2d Cir. 1993) (due process requires case‑by‑case assessment of prolonged pretrial detention)
- United States v. Accetturo, 783 F.2d 382 (3d Cir. 1986) (due‑process considerations for detention length)
- State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594 (2013) (procedural rule on raising issues in trial court)
- State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311 (2011) (procedural limits on belated arguments)