State v. William Roseman and Lori Lewin (073674), 116 A.3d 20

Background

William Roseman (former mayor) and Lori Lewin were divorced in 2000; Lewin nonetheless remained listed on Carlstadt’s municipal insurance due to a payroll clerk’s administrative error. After discovery in 2007, Roseman reported the error, removed Lewin from the plan, and initiated an audit; Lewin and her insurer repaid all claims (including direct restitution for time-barred claims).
In 2009 both were indicted on third-degree conspiracy, third-degree theft by deception, and second-degree official misconduct; other similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted.
Defendants applied for Pretrial Intervention (PTI). The prosecutor initially rejected both applications, citing the statutory and Rule 3:28 presumptions against PTI for second-degree offenses and multiple statutory factors under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e); the prosecutor’s written reasons largely echoed statutory language without specific factual support.
The trial court, finding a patent and gross abuse of discretion, ordered admission of both into PTI over the prosecutor’s objection. The Appellate Division reversed as to Roseman and remanded as to Lewin. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.
The Supreme Court held that defendants satisfied the threshold to rebut the presumption against PTI for second-degree offenses based on extraordinary, idiosyncratic facts (self-reporting, immediate remediation, full restitution) and that the prosecutor’s denial was a patent and gross abuse of discretion; it reinstated the trial court’s order admitting both into PTI.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of PTI applications	State: PTI reconsideration was untimely because the trial judge reopened PTI discussions years after indictment	Defendants: PTI applications were filed within 28 days of indictment and timely; reconsideration is permissible	Held: Applications were timely under R.3:28(h); trial court properly treated later review as reconsideration
Presumption against PTI for second-degree/public-official offenses	State: Prosecutor may rely on Rule 3:28 and N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(b) presumptions to deny PTI; deference to prosecutorial charging judgment	Defendants: Extraordinary facts rebut presumption (self-reporting, remediation, restitution, limited fault)	Held: Exceptional, idiosyncratic facts here overcame the presumption against PTI for second-degree offenses
Prosecutor’s exercise of discretion and sufficiency of reasons	State: Prosecutor considered relevant statutory factors and properly denied PTI	Defendants: Prosecutor’s written denial parroted statutory language without factual support; decision failed to consider relevant facts and individualized amenability to rehabilitation	Held: Prosecutor’s denial was a patent and gross abuse of discretion—reasons were conclusory and contradicted by the record
Individualized assessment for co-defendant Lewin	State: PTI denial could rely on related facts regarding Roseman	Lewin: Assessment was improperly tethered to Roseman and lacked individualized analysis	Held: Lewin was entitled to an individualized assessment; prosecutor’s letter showed denial was dependent on Roseman, so Lewin was improperly denied—trial court order admitting both to PTI reinstated

Key Cases Cited

State v. Watkins, 193 N.J. 507 (discusses PTI standards and need for individualized assessment)
State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236 (establishes need for "extraordinary or unusual" circumstances to overcome presumptions against PTI)
State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576 (recognizes PTI decision as prosecutorial function; standard for judicial review)
State v. Leonardis, 71 N.J. 85 (origins of PTI rule framework)
State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360 (prosecutorial discretion in PTI and judicial review standard)
State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84 (defines "patent and gross abuse of discretion" for PTI denials)
State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503 (trial court may admit to PTI over prosecutor when abuse shown)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (analogous standard for overcoming presumptions in sentencing)
State v. Caliguiri, 158 N.J. 28 (recognizes presumption against PTI for public officers)