State v. McInerney
428 N.J. Super. 432
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Defendant Bartholomew P. McInerney was a high school varsity baseball coach and school employee.
- He was convicted of ten counts of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a.
- The trial court sentenced him to three consecutive six-year terms and seven concurrent five-year terms.
- The evidence showed ongoing supervision and extensive interactions with the victims beyond normal coaching duties.
- The trial judge gave jury instructions that blended the Galloway standard with Title 9 definitions, leading to error.
- On appeal the court remanded for a new trial due to defective jury instructions and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McInerney had a legal duty or assumed responsibility for the care of the victims. | McInerney had ongoing supervisory role under Galloway. | Evidence insufficient to prove ongoing duty or responsibility. | Remanded for new trial; jury instruction error requires reversal on this element. |
| Whether the jury was correctly instructed on the meaning of 'assumed responsibility' under 2C:24-4a. | Galloway supports broader inclusion of supervisory relationships. | Instruction conflated staff roles with parental responsibility. | Reversal; need proper instruction distinguishing ongoing responsibility from temporary care. |
| Whether the jury instructions improperly allowed convictions under two forms of the offense and used an incorrect verdict sheet. | The state could prove second-degree endangering under either form. | Unclear verdict form risks non-unanimous or invalid verdict. | Remanded for a new trial due to defective verdict forms and instructions. |
| Whether the endangering statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied. | Statute clearly defines harm with respect to abuse/neglect. | Statutory vagueness in defining 'sexual conduct' and 'legal duty' limits. | No reversible facial vagueness; applied context supports conviction, but remand still required for instructional defects. |
| Whether admission of extraterritorial and adult-victim statements under 404(b) and related evidentiary rulings tainted the trial. | Evidence of trips and adult-conversations could show predisposition. | Evidence improperly admitted; jurisdictional issues. | Remand directing reevaluation under Rose framework; not dispositive given instructional error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631 (1993) (defines 'assumed responsibility' and emphasizes ongoing supervisory relationship)
- State v. Demarest, 252 N.J. Super. 323 (App.Div.1991) (interpreting incorporation of Title 9 into 2C:24-4a; limits of incorporation)
- State v. Buscham, 360 N.J. Super. 346 (App.Div.2003) (factors for supervisory/disciplinary power; relevance to ongoing supervision)
- State v. T.C., 347 N.J. Super. 219 (App.Div.2002) (abuse/neglect harm instruction; cautions on tailoring to facts)
- State v. N.I., 349 N.J. Super. 299 (App.Div.2002) (necessity of clear jury instructions; fair trial)