STATE IN THE INTEREST OF R.B.(FJ-15-531-16, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             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    NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5178-15T1
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE
    INTEREST OF R.B., A JUVENILE.
    ________________________________________________________
    Submitted June 19, 2017 – Decided July 6, 2017
    Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New
    Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean
    County, Docket No. FJ-15-531-16.
    Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
    for appellant R.B. (Ruth E. Hunter, Designated
    Counsel, on the brief).
    Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor,
    attorney for respondent State of New Jersey
    (Samuel Marzarella, Supervising Assistant
    Prosecutor, of counsel; William Kyle Meighan,
    Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    R.B., a juvenile,1 was charged with three counts of juvenile
    delinquency which, if committed by an adult, would constitute
    first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1),
    1
    At the time of the conduct in question, R.B. was fifteen and his
    female victim was six years old.
    second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b), and third-
    degree   child   endangerment,   N.J.S.A.    2C:24-4(a).       The   juvenile
    agreed to plead guilty to the second charge in exchange for both
    the dismissal of the other charges and the State's agreement to
    recommend a three-year probationary period. The juvenile agreed
    to other conditions, including the preparation of a predisposition
    report and his submission to a sex offender evaluation.
    Following its preparation, defense counsel provided to the
    prosecutor and the probation department a redacted copy of a
    psychosexual evaluation. The State, however, requested turnover
    of an unredacted copy, to which the juvenile's attorney objected.
    Consequently,    the   judge   conducted    an   in   camera    review     and
    determined the prosecutor and probation department were entitled
    to see and consider the unredacted evaluation. The judge's June
    6, 2016 turnover order barred the future dissemination or use of
    the unredacted report for any other purposes.2
    Pursuant to his agreement with the prosecutor, the juvenile
    acknowledged his delinquent conduct and was placed on a three-year
    probationary term. The order of adjudication, also entered on June
    6, 2016, incorporated the protective order.
    2
    The order specifically stated that "information contained in or
    derived from said report shall not be disclosed to any other person
    for any other reason nor disseminated or made public by any means,
    direct or indirect[.]"
    2                                  A-5178-15T1
    The juvenile appeals, arguing in a single point that:
    THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT THE
    JUVENILE PRODUCE AN UN-REDACTED COPY OF THE
    JUVENILE'S "PSYCHOSEXUAL EVALUATION," WHICH
    CONTAINED   INCRIMINATING  AND  CONFIDENTIAL
    STATEMENTS BY THE JUVENILE. THEREFORE, THIS
    COURT SHOULD VACATE THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING
    AND REMAND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER FORBIDDING
    THE   FUTURE    USE   OF  THE   CONFIDENTIAL
    INFORMATION.
    We reject both parts of this argument.
    First, whether the judge correctly ordered the release of the
    unredacted report to the prosecutor or the probation department
    was rendered moot once the report was turned over. Even assuming
    we were to agree the turnover order was erroneous for any of the
    reasons asserted in this appeal, there is no practical remedy
    available to the juvenile. See State v. Ross, 
    441 N.J. Super. 120
    ,
    125-26 (App. Div. 2015); Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 
    382 N.J. Super. 254
    , 257-58 (App. Div. 2006).
    Second, the juvenile argues we should remand for entry of a
    protective order. The judge, however, did enter a protective order
    that barred any further dissemination of the report. This argument
    is, thus, moot for the reason that the relief sought on appeal was
    already provided by the trial court.
    The appeal is moot and, therefore, dismissed.
    3                            A-5178-15T1
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-5178-15T1

Filed Date: 7/6/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021