State v. J.D.

308 A.3d 282

477 N.J.Super. 523

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff,

v.J.D., Defendant.

ACCUSATION NO. 20-09-0475

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Morris County.

Decided: March 15, 2023

Vanessa I. Craveiro, Assistant Prosecutor, for plaintiff (Robert J. Carroll, Morris County Prosecutor, attorney).

Maureen Miller, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, for defendant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney).

FRANZBLAU, J.S.C.

₅₂₈In this matter, the State seeks for this court to appoint a Guardian / Guardian Ad Litem for the purpose of securing private educational services for defendant and engaging defendant in ₅₂₉involuntary education to assist him in attaining competency to stand trial.

Facts and Procedural History

On July 20, 2020, a complaint warrant was issued against J.D. (D.O.B. 07/30/00) charging him with the following offenses: (i) four counts of sexual assault on a minor in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b), each a crime in the second degree; (ii) one count of child endangerment in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1), a crime of the second degree; and (iii) one count of child endangerment in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1), a crime of the third degree.

On or about September 25, 2020, defendant waived his right to indictment and entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to two counts of criminal sexual contact in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b), each a crime of the fourth degree. That plea agreement contemplated imposition of the following sentence: "5 years probation conditioned upon 364 days MCCF [Morris County Correctional Facility] SUSPENDED[,] Megan’s Law, Psycho-Sexual Evaluation required as a condition of probation and follow any treatment recommendations."

In connection with defendant’s guilty plea and prior to sentencing, a psycho-sexual evaluation and risk assessment were completed by Kenneth McNiel, Ph.D. Within a February 8, 2021 report, Dr. McNiel opined that defendant was not competent to stand trial and could not be restored to competency as a result of, among other things, defendant’s impaired cognitive functioning, intellectual disability and impairment. In pertinent part, Dr. McNiel opined that:

Educational records indicate intellectual functioning in the Extremely Low range, (2^nd percentile), with severe deficits in basic academic skills. Overall clinical impression is of a well-intentioned but extremely limited individual generally functioning at the eight – ten year old level, who compensates and can sometimes hide his limitations with [a] genuine, friendly personality and cooperative social style. He nonetheless remains highly dependent on others for functional support and could easily be misled or exploited.

….

₅₃₀[T]he results of this evaluation indicate a chronic history of intellectual impairment and disability that includes severe deficits in language skills, verbal comprehension and abstract reasoning skills which limit [J.D.]’s ability to rationally understand legal proceedings or to assist in his own defense. It is my opinion within a reasonable degree of professional certainty that [J.D.] did not fully understand the Miranda warnings as administered to him and that he is not competent to stand trial due to chronic intellectual impairment that is unlikely to improve in the foreseeable future.

[McNiel Report, pp. 10-11].

As a result of Dr. McNiel’s conclusions, on or about April 21, 2021, the court ordered that a formal competency evaluation be performed by the Ann Klein Forensic Center (AKFC).

Within a May 18, 2021 report, Raymond Terranova, Ph.D., concluded that defendant was not competent to stand trial due to his low level of intellectual functioning, which, in part, could be connected to defendant’s limited education. He further stated that, "it is this examiner’s opinion that the defendant’s level of intellectual functioning is the only present barrier to his competency. It is this examiner’s opinion that repeated exposure to the competency standard, as noted above, could restore [J.D.]’s competency." Terranova Report, p. 15 (emphasis added). Dr. Terranova concluded that J.D. needed education regarding his plea options, legal strategy and his Fifth Amendment rights. Dr. Terranova further opined, within a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that J.D. "does not currently present with a level of risk to self or others in a manner that would warrant civil commitment." Id. at 14.

In August 2021, the court ordered that the criminal proceedings in this case be suspended for a three month period and for another competency evaluation to be performed by AKFC. That subsequent evaluation was completed by Jeffrey Palmer, Psy.D. Dr. Palmer’s opinions are set forth within his March 4, 2022 report. Dr. Palmer agreed with Dr. Terranova’s findings that defendant was not competent to stand trial and that defendant could become competent with education. In this regard, Dr. Palmer opined, within a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that, "[J.D.] was [sic] incompetent to proceed at this time and would remain so ₅₃₁if no efforts at education were [sic] made."¹ Palmer Report, p. 12. Dr. Palmer further concluded that, "there was not sufficient evidence available to suggest that [J.D.] presented an imminent danger to himself, others, or property at this time and was appropriate for involuntary hospitalization." Ibid. Finally, Dr. Palmer concluded that defendant does not meet the criteria for being considered "dangerous" for the purpose of civil commitment. Ibid.

The State has not challenged the conclusions of Dr. McNiel, Dr. Terranova or Dr. Palmer that defendant is not currently competent to stand trial based upon his low level of intellectual functioning or that defendant does not pose a danger to himself or others.

This court issued a May 9, 2022 order requiring that Dr. Terranova and/or Dr. Palmer prepare an addendum to their respective reports to provide guidance on what type of education/treatment would be needed to potentially bring defendant to competency.² On May 27, 2022, after consultation with Dr. Terranova, Dr. Palmer responded to the court’s May 9, 2022 order. Dr. Palmer referenced his prior evaluation and that of Dr. Terranova and noted, "there was evidence that [J.D.] had the capacity to learn new material with education." However, Dr. Palmer advised, "the State does not have a community-based competency restoration program and I was unable to locate a ₅₃₂State affiliated agency that provide[s] similar services." Dr. Palmer then suggested that defendant meet with Jonathan Wall, Psy.D., a private service provider.

Dr. Wall met with defendant on one occasion to consider an educational treatment plan for defendant to attain competency. However, defendant was unable to retain Dr. Wall’s services due to inadequate financial resources. As a result, the State demanded that defendant sign up for benefits with the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) asserting that any disability benefits received by defendant could fund his private educational treatment plan for the purpose of attaining competency to stand trial. Likewise, the State asserted that if defendant is unable to sign up for DDD benefits on his own, defendant should be required to enroll in the Criminal Justice Advocacy Program (CJAP), which organization could assist him in signing up for DDD benefits. Whether intentional or as a result of defendant’s intellectual impairment, he has been unable to complete the application for DDD benefits, which was reported to be in excess of twenty pages, and he has been unable or unwilling to engage CJAP to assist him in procuring DDD benefits.

With the consent of the parties, by order dated July 19, 2022, this court ordered that the New Jersey Department of Health (DOH) "pay for any and all future sessions of treatment and education between defendant and Dr. Jonathan Wall, Psy.D., as needed to assist defendant in gaining competency." However, following DOH’s intervention and a request for reconsideration, this court vacated the July 19, 2022 order after concluding that DOH has no statutory obligation to provide educational and competency restoration services on an outpatient basis.³ Concomitantly, this court extrapolated that DOH also would have no ₅₈₃obligation to pay for educational and competency restoration services on an outpatient basis since DOH has no underlying obligation to provide those same services on an outpatient basis.

Based upon the opinion of Dr. Terranova, which was subsequently adopted by Dr. Palmer, that J.D. "could" be restored to competency through education, and defendant’s unwillingness and/or inability to procure DDD benefits to fund private educational services to potentially attain competency, on December 20, 2022, the State submitted a motion for this court to appoint a Guardian Ad Litem for defendant to assist him in signing up for DDD benefits and provide him with any other assistance needed to secure private educational services in order to attain competency.⁴ The Office of the Public Defender, which represents defendant, filed opposition on December 29, 2022, asserting that there is no legal basis for a Guardian Ad Litem to be appointed.⁵ The court held oral argument on February 23, 2023.

This court now denies the State’s motion to appoint a Guardian / Guardian Ad Litem for the purpose of securing private educational services for defendant and engaging defendant in involuntary education to assist him in attaining competency to stand trial.

₅₃₄Analysis

The State argues that criminal courts have the authority to issue unique remedies and a duty to protect individuals with mental infirmities. More specially, in this case, the State argues that this court must exercise it parens patriae authority to appoint a Guardian / Guardian Ad Litem to assist defendant in attaining competency to stand trial.

[1, 2] Referencing the parens patriae authority, the State draws on "the inherent equitable...