SYLLABUS
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has
been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the
reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please
note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not
have been summarized).
(NOTE: This Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court’s affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in Judge Parker’s opinion below.)
Argued January 3, 2006 -- Decided January 26, 2006
PER CURIAM
The issue before the Court is whether aggravating and mitigating factors should be
considered when determining a commitment term for a defendant involuntarily committed to a
mental health institution after being found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Defendant, M.M., was charged with first degree attempted murder; second degree aggravated assault;
second degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose; and fourth degree
aggravated assault. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) on
the attempted murder charge and was ordered civilly committed for a period not
to exceed twenty years. The remaining counts were merged into the attempted murder
charge and dismissed.
At the commitment hearing, the trial judge reviewed the expert reports and found,
in support of the NGI verdict, that M.M. suffered from schizophrenia, a serious
defect of reason that prevented her from knowing that what she was doing
was wrong. The court found M.M.’s actions were based on delusional thoughts about
the victim, actions she felt were necessary to save herself and her father
from the imagined evil coming from the victim. The trial court further determined
that M.M. could not be released without presenting a danger to herself or
others, necessitating commitment to a mental health facility to be treated as a
person civilly committed.
At a subsequent Krol hearing, M.M. urged the court to apply aggravating and
mitigating circumstances in determining the length of commitment. The judge declined, citing N.J.S.A.2C:4-8b(3)
(Section 8b(3)), which in relevant part provides that a defendant’s continued commitment be
established by a preponderance of the evidence, during the maximum period of imprisonment
that could have been imposed, as an ordinary term of imprisonment for any
charge on which the defendant has been acquitted by reason of insanity. The
trial judge noted that the ordinary term for first degree murder is ten
to twenty years with a presumptive term of fifteen years. The court reasoned
that Section 8b(3) provided for M.M.’s continued commitment during the “maximum period of
imprisonment that could have been imposed.”
M.M. appealed to the Appellate Division, arguing that the “usual principles of sentencing”
mandate consideration of the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the length of
commitment. In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Appellate Division concluded
that the “usual principles of sentencing” do not include consideration of the aggravating
and mitigating factors to determine the term of commitment because Section 8b(3) establishes
the maximum term of commitment, subject to periodic review.
HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons
expressed in Judge Parker’s written opinion. The “usual principles of sentencing” do not
include consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the term of commitment
to a mental health facility for a defendant acquitted by reason of insanity.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE
and RIVERA-SOTO join in this PER CURIAM opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
A-
7 September Term 2005
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMITMENT OF M.M.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
M.M.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Argued January 3, 2006 – Decided January 26, 2006
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at
377 N.J. Super. 71 (2005).
Lon C. Taylor, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne
Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney).
Joseph H. Enos, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Sean F.
Dalton, Gloucester County Prosecutor, attorney).
PER CURIAM
The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Parker’s opinion
of the Appellate Division, reported at
377 N.J. Super. 71 (2005).
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI, ALBIN, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join
in this opinion.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
NO. A-7 SEPTEMBER TERM 2005
ON CERTIFICATION TO Appellate Division, Superior Court
IN THE MATTER OF THE
COMMITMENT OF M.M.
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
M.M.,
Defendant-Appellant.
DECIDED January 26, 2006
Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING
OPINION BY Per Curiam
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY
DISSENTING OPINION BY
CHECKLIST