THE PROSECUTOR, NOT THE JUDGE, DETERMINES WHETHER DEFENDANT MAY ENTER PRE-TRIAL INTERVENTION PROGRAM SAYS APPELLATE COURT
A recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Court held that the trial judge impermissibly substituted his judgment for that of the prosecutor, and failed to afford the prosecutor's decision the strong presumption of validity to which it is legally entitled.
In State v. Figueiredo, 12-2-5179, Defendant was charged with fourth-degree possession of less than one ounce of marijuana with intent to distribute; and third-degree possession of less than one ounce of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of school property in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. Defendant applied for Pre-Trial Intervention Program (PTI) was denied by the Union County Prosecutor's office. PTI is a program for first-time offenders that intended as an alternative to the traditional criminal justice process of ordinary prosecution through use of rehabilitative services to deter future criminal behavior
The prosecution's rejection of defendant's application to PTI was based on the assertion that defendant was barred pursuant to State v. Caliguiri, because defendant was charged with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of school property and had failed to present sufficient reasons to overcome an adverse presumption. The Law Division overruled the prosecutor's objection and ordered defendant's enrollment in the program. The State successfully appealed lower court's ruling due to the Judge impermissibly substituting his judgment for the prosecutor's.
