RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1543-20 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A.T-P., Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted August 23, 2021 – Decided August 30, 2021 Before Judges Whipple and Natali. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Indictment No. 20-01- 0011. Michael H. Robertson, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney for appellant (Rory A. Eaton, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs). Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for respondent (Tamar Y. Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM The State appeals from the Law Division's dismissal of an indictment charging defendant C.A.T-P.1 with: 1) third-degree aggravated assault— strangulation, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(13); 2) third-degree aggravated assault— significant bodily injury, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(12); 3) fourth-degree hindering apprehension or prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(2); and 4) fourth-degree unlawful possession of a prohibited device—hollow point bullets, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)(1). The motion judge dismissed the indictment on two grounds. First, h e concluded it was in the "interests of justice" to dismiss the charges as the State's ability to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would "ultimately fail" because defendant was deported and not presently located in the United States and the victim, M.A.N-Z., expressed her intention not to testify against him. Second, the court noted that defendant was available for a "considerable amount of time" before being deported and the State failed to take appropriate measures to secure his appearance for trial prior to his removal from the United States. On appeal, the State contends the court abused its discretion by dismissing the indictment, arguing that it improperly evaluated the strength of the State's 1 We use initials to protect M.A.N-Z.'s privacy. R. 1:38-3(c)(12). A-1543-20 2 proofs and made incorrect assumptions regarding the ability of the State to introduce admissible evidence establishing defendant's guilt. We agree and reverse and remand with directions that the court reinstate the indictment. I. The State's charges stem from an incident that occurred during the early morning hours of November 23, 2019, when officers from the North Plainfield Police Department responded to a local residence based upon a report of an assault potentially involving a handgun. The officers met with the victim, M.A.N-Z., who advised them that she lived with defendant, her boyfriend, and their infant child. She also informed the officers that defendant had taken the child to their neighbor's apartment. M.A.N-Z. stated that defendant physically assaulted her after her friend left the apartment earlier that night, and in response to her friend allegedly insulting defendant. She explained that while in the common hallway defendant pushed her against the wall and strangled her, obstructing her breathing. The officers observed visible marks on her neck, which …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals