STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SAMUEL W. CHEN STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. COLIN P. QUINN STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL T. SANTITORO (17-04-0261, 17-04-0263, and 17-04-0262, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-1121-18T4

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SAMUEL W. CHEN STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. COLIN P. QUINN STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MICHAEL T. SANTITORO (17-04-0261, 17-04-0263, and 17-04-0262, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED) (A-1121-18T4/A-1122-18T4/A-1123-18T4)

These consolidated appeals ask the court to determine whether the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office (Prosecutor's Office) can condition defendants' admissions into the pretrial intervention program (PTI) applications, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12, on service of jail time after they were released on their own recognizance.

In accordance with plea agreements, defendants pled guilty to amended charges of third-degree criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3, and they were each sentenced to a four-year term of noncustodial probation. Pursuing rights preserved in their plea agreements, defendants sought to overturn the denials of their PTI applications with appeals to the trial judge, claiming the Prosecutor's Office abused its discretion by proposing that they serve jail time to gain admission. The trial judge rejected defendants' requests without addressing the impact of the jail time proposals.

We reverse. The Prosecutor's Office abused its discretion by tainting the PTI application process through unsuccessfully seeking to have defendants agree to serve jail time to gain admission. Although imposing the condition of jail time for PTI admission was not expressly permitted or prohibited by the governing statute, court rule, or guidelines in effect at the time, we conclude it was illegal to do so because vesting such authority to the Prosecutor's Office would afford it powers contrary to the Legislature's intent in creating PTI. The trial court shall therefore enter orders vacating defendants' guilty pleas and admit them into PTI.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PETER K. PAUL (W-2019-000346-1507, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-0599-20T6)

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PETER K. PAUL (W-2019-000346-1507, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (A-0599-20T6)

Rule 3:26-2(c)(2) governs a defendant's motion to relax conditions of his or her pre-trial release under the Criminal Justice Reform Act. The Rule empowers the trial court to recalibrate a releasee's conditions upon a showing of "a material change in circumstance." The court holds that pre-trial discovery that has reduced the "weight of the evidence" against the defendant may constitute such changed circumstances. So may a defendant's compliance with restrictive conditions over an extended period, if such compliance coincides with another material change demonstrating that the defendant's pre-trial behavior may be adequately managed by less restrictive means than initially imposed. Because the trial court here did not review defendant's motion to relax his release conditions under Rule 3:26-2(c)(2), the court granted defendant's motion for leave to appeal, reversed the trial court's order denying relief, and remanded for reconsideration.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PETER NYEMA (11-08-0833, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0891-18T4)

 STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. PETER NYEMA (11-08-0833, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (A-0891-18T4)

Following the denial of his motion to suppress physical evidence, defendant pled guilty to first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. Police officers seized the evidence following an investigatory stop of an automobile in which defendant was a passenger. The arresting officer testified he stopped the car because he was advised two black men had robbed a store. The officer used a spotlight mounted to his car to illuminate the interiors of passing vehicles as he traveled to the store. In one car, he observed three black men who did not react to the light. The officer stopped the car based on those observations. The court holds that knowledge of the race and gender of criminal suspects, without more, does not establish a reasonable articulable suspicion that the men in the car had robbed the store. Accordingly, the court reverses defendant's conviction, vacates his sentence, and remands for further proceedings.