A helpful reader ensured I did not miss the fascinating New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in NJ v. Comer, A-42-20)(NJ Jan 10, 2022) (available here), regarding limits on extreme juvenile sentencing. The start of the opinion for the Court provide the context and the essentials of the ruling:
This appeal raises challenging questions about the constitutional limits that apply to sentences for juvenile offenders.
The law recognizes what we all know from life experience — that children are different from adults. Children lack maturity, can be impetuous, are more susceptible to pressure from others, and often fail to appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 477 (2012). They are also more capable of change than adults. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68 (2010). Yet we know as well that some juveniles — who commit very serious crimes and show no signs of maturity or rehabilitation over time — should serve lengthy periods of incarceration.
The issue before the Court is how to meld those truths in a way that conforms to the Constitution and contemporary standards of decency. In other words, how to impose lengthy sentences on juveniles that are not only just but that also account for a simple reality: we cannot predict, at a juvenile’s young age, whether a person can be rehabilitated and when an individual might be fit to reenter society.
The question arises in the context of two juveniles who committed extraordinarily serious crimes for which they received long sentences. In one case, the juvenile offender, who was convicted of felony murder, will not be released for three decades and cannot be considered for parole throughout that time. In the other appeal, it will be more than four decades before the 14-yearold offender, convicted of purposeful murder, will first be eligible to be considered for parole.
Both juveniles argue that their sentences violate federal and state constitutional provisions that bar cruel and unusual punishment. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 12. They ask the Court to find that a mandatory sentence of at least 30 years without parole, which N.J.S.A. 2C:11- 3(b)(1) requires, is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles.
We decline to strike that aspect of the homicide statute. But we recognize the serious constitutional issue defendants present under the State Constitution. The Court, in fact, anticipated the question in 2017 and asked the Legislature to consider amending...
