State ex rel. E.S., 252 N.J. 331 (2022). As discussed here, last year the Appellate Division addressed the “unsettled” question of which should come first in a criminal case involving a juvenile sought to be tried as an adult: a suppression motion in the Family Part or a waiver to the Criminal Part? The Appellate Division declined to adopt a bright line rule, instead observing that trial judges have substantial discretion in setting their calendars, and that the order in which to proceed is a “discretionary, highly contextual decision” dependent on the particular circumstances. The court stated, however, that there should be “a general preference toward conducting the suppression hearing first, in light of the policy concerns associated with the powerful impact of waivers upon minors.”
As suggested in this blog’s post about the Appellate Division’s decision, the Supreme Court granted review. Today, in an opinion by Justice Solomon, the Court by a 5-0 vote (Justice Fasciale and Judge Sabatino did not participate) affirmed that decision as modified.
The Court laid out a number of criteria for trial judges to use in exercising their discretion to manage their calendars. Justice Solomon summarized those as “1) whether the evidence that the defendant is seeking to suppress, if excluded, would be dispositive of probable cause or have a substantial effect on the case in chief; (2) whether there are co-defendants with suppression motions pending in the Family or Criminal Parts; and (3) judicial efficiency and management of the court’s calendar.” He elaborated on those in the course of the opinion. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision that the trial judge in today’s case had not abused its discretion in determining that the waiver hearing would proceed first.
The Court did not, however, agree with the Appellate Division that there should be a general preference toward conducting the suppression hearing first. On that issue, Justice Pierre-Louis, who filed a concurring opinion agreeing with the result in this case ,took a different view. She said she would “adopt the general preference for the Family Part to conduct suppression hearings prior to considering waiver motions, as suggested by the Appellate Division.”