C.J. Stuart Rabner, center (Carmen Natale/ALM)

No Contempt Charges Under Criminal Justice Reform Act, NJ High Court Rules - New Jersey Law Journal

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously reversed an Appellate Division ruling that a defendant who has been released pretrial under the Criminal Justice Reform Act, and subsequently violates a condition of that release, can be charged and prosecuted for criminal contempt.  But the defendant can, of course, be prosecuted for any crimes committed while released. - gwc

by Suzette Parmley

In a 7-0 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed an appellate panel’s ruling that a defendant who has been released pretrial under the Criminal Justice Reform Act, and subsequently violates a condition of that release, can be charged and prosecuted for criminal contempt by the state.

In State v. McCray and State v. Gabourel, Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, writing for the court, said such action was at complete odds with the legislative intent of the CJRA. The act took effect on Jan. 1, 2017, under former Gov. Chris Christie and essentially eliminated money bail to make New Jersey’s pretrial justice system fairer.

“The history of the CJRA reveals the Legislature did not intend to authorize criminal contempt charges for violations of release conditions,” Rabner wrote in the July 20 opinion. “Beyond that, allowing such charges for all violations of conditions of release, no matter how minor, is at odds with the purpose and structure of the CJRA.”

Justices Jaynee LaVecchia, Barry Albin, Anne Patterson, Faustino Fernandez-Vina, Lee Solomon and Walter Timpone join in the unanimous decision.

In the two consolidated cases on appeal, both defendants were arrested and released on nonmonetary conditions, pursuant to the CJRA. After allegedly violating those conditions, each defendant was charged with contempt, a fourth-degree offense, for violating a court order.

The state—the plaintiff in both cases—argued there was nothing in the CJRA that precludes contempt prosecutions, which are consistent with the act’s purposes and supported by case law in State v. Gandhi.

KEEP READING