State v. Steele
430 N.J. Super. 24
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Steele, a 42-year-old convicted sex offender released in 2010, is subject to CSL and Megan’s Law.
- Indictment 12-07-0570 in Passaic County charges six counts of lewdness; Indictment 12-06-0481 charges CSL violation for failing to report arrests and to refrain from contacting a minor.
- Arrests occurred March 23-24, 2012; bail placed on these charges initially at $35,000 (lewdness) with ten-percent option and $50,000 (CSL) without ten-percent.
- April 5, 2012, after new CSL violation arrest, bail on CSL remained $50,000; lewdness bail increased to $150,000 cash; theft charges remanded; later pleas reduced some charges.
- Trial court relied on Rule 3:26-1 factors and noted dangerousness to the community; found high risk of flight and safety concerns; exceeded $2500 ceiling for fourth-degree offenses.
- Court ultimately modified and remanded, reducing monetary bail to $75,000 (lewdness) and $25,000 (CSL), and remanding for consideration of non-monetary conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse discretion by setting excessive monetary bail for fourth-degree offenses? | State contends high bail appropriately mitigates risk of flight given exposure. | Steele asserts bail exceeds what is necessary to assure appearance and violates constitutional right to bail. | No abuse; but bail amount challenged; appellate adjustment granted. |
| Whether the court properly considered flight risk and community safety under Rule 3:26-1? | State emphasizes factors justify risk of flight and potential harm to the community. | Steele argues monetary conditions cannot be used to protect the community; focus should be on appearance. | Court correctly weighed flight risk and community safety; high risk supported consideration of higher bail. |
| Whether ten-percent option or all-cash bail presumptions were properly applied to these charges? | State bears burden to show grounds to dispense with ten-percent option and justify high cash bail. | Steele argues ten-percent option should apply and high cash bail is not required. | Presumptions discussed; good cause shown to exceed $2500; ten-percent option deemed insufficient to assure appearance. |
| Should non-monetary conditions be imposed to protect the community instead of relying solely on monetary bail? | State argues monetary bail can be used to compel appearance and permit ongoing monitoring. | Steele contends non-monetary conditions should be used where possible and monetary bail should not serve protective purposes. | Remand for consideration of appropriate non-monetary conditions; monetary bail modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fajardo-Santos, 199 N.J. 520 (2009) (fact-sensitive bail review; abuse of discretion if improper basis or irrelevant factors)
- State v. Korecky, 169 N.J. 364 (2001) (monetary conditions must not punish; permit non-monetary conditions to protect community)
- State v. Johnson, 61 N.J. 351 (1972) (right to bail; purpose is to assure appearance; informs use of non-monetary conditions)
- Casavina v. State, 163 N.J. Super. 27 (App. Div. 1978) (burden to show grounds to dispense with ten-percent option by preponderance of evidence)
- State v. Fortin, 198 N.J. 619 (2009) (interpret statutes to avoid constitutional infirmities; set bail to assure appearance)