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).

Jamgochian v. New Jersey State Parole Board (A-63-07)

Argued April 8, 2008 -- Decided August 6, 2008

ALBIN, J., writing for a unanimous Court.

The central issue in this appeal is the process that is due to a community-supervised-for-life offender prior to the imposition of a curfew.

Ronald Jamgochian was twice convicted of sexually assaulting young women after luring them to his “photography studio” with offers of modeling work. After serving the prison term on his most recent conviction, Jamgochian was released subject to community supervision for life. On April 14, 2005, three-and-one-half years after his release, Jamgochian propositioned a seventeen-year-old waitress (pseudonym “Sarah”) with an unspecified job opportunity while telling her to keep their conversations secret. Sarah contacted the police. On April 15, 2005, Jamgochian’s District Parole Supervisor imposed two special conditions on his supervised status, directing that Jamgochian have no contact in any form with Sarah and that he comply with a curfew at his “residence between the hours of 8:00 pm and 7:00 am daily.” Three days later, the District Parole Supervisor imposed an additional special condition, requiring that Jamgochian “participate in, and successfully complete an appropriate mental health-counseling program” for sex offenders.

Approximately two weeks later, Jamgochian, through his attorney, wrote to the Chairman of the New Jersey State Parole Board, objecting to the imposition of the special conditions because they were not approved by a panel of the Parole Board and because they were unwarranted and unreasonable. On May 4, 2005, a two-member Parole Board panel affirmed the imposition of the three special conditions, stating that Jamgochian’s conduct was “alarmingly similar” to the steps he took leading to his previous crimes. Jamgochian then appealed to the full Parole Board, claiming that the imposition of the special conditions violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and to confront the witnesses against him.