State v. Tedesco
214 N.J. 177
| N.J. | 2013Background
- Defendant Giuseppe Tedesco was convicted of murder and related gun offenses and is awaiting sentencing.
- Defendant filed a written waiver claiming an absolute right to be absent from sentencing under Rule 3:21-4(b); trial and appellate courts considered whether to accept the waiver.
- Victim Michele Ruggieri and the State moved to compel defendant’s presence at sentencing, citing victims’ rights and the victim’s impact statement.
- The trial court denied the waiver and ordered appearance; the Appellate Division affirmed; this Court granted review and stayed sentencing.
- The central legal question was whether a defendant has an absolute unilateral right to be absent from sentencing and how to evaluate a waiver of this right, balancing interests of the public, defendant, victims, and State.
- The Court held that there is no absolute right to be absent; trial judges may require presence, must assess voluntariness, good faith, and balance interests, and remanded for sentencing with defendant present.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to be absent at sentencing | State argues no unilateral right to absentia | Tedesco claims absolute right to waive appearance | Waiver not absolute; court may compel presence |
| Standing of victims to compel presence | State/victim seeks presence to protect rights | No need to address standing beyond victim’s rights | Victim has standing via Crime Victims’ rights; Court proceeds on merits |
| Framework for evaluating waiver | State supports Dunne-like framework | Waiver should be unreviewable | Adopts two Dunne prongs; adds factual, in-court inquiry and balance of interests; requires open-court questioning when granting waiver |
| Judicial balancing factors | Public deterrence and accountability require presence | Practical concerns favor waiver (costs, security) | Factors favor defendant’s appearance; orderly, public sentencing preferred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dunne, 124 N.J. 303 (N.J. 1991) (framework for evaluating waiver requests in non-jury settings; factors include gravity of crime and public interest)
- State v. Hudson, 119 N.J. 165 (N.J. 1990) (rule-change history on right to be present; absence of automatic in absentia trial)
- Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1965) (waiver of rights does not guarantee opposite of that right; not all rights can be compelled to be waived)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1982) (public interest in open and fair judicial proceedings; appearance of justice)
- Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1954) (dignity and decorum in judicial proceedings)