From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Maxwell

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Jun 24, 2003
361 N.J. Super. 401 (App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

No. A-2113-01T5

Argued June 3, 2003

Decided June 24, 2003

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 99-11-1086-I, whose opinion is reported at ___ N.J. Super. ___ (Law Div. 2001).

Before Judges Stern, Coburn and Collester.

Edward A. Jerejian argued the cause for appellant (Jerejian Jerejian, attorneys; Mr. Jerejian and Rita T. Jerejian, of counsel and on the brief).

Boris Moczula, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Peter C. Harvey, Acting Attorney General, attorney; Wendy Alice Way, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).


Following the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment and entry of a guilty plea under the plea preservation rule, R. 3:9-3(f), defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of S.M. in June 1999, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(1) (count one), and endangering the welfare of ten other young girls, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4 (counts five through fourteen). Count two charged attempted aggravated sexual assault on S.M. in September 1999, and counts three and four charged endangering S.M. in June and September, respectively. These three counts were dismissed under the negotiated disposition.

On this appeal, defendant argues that "the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss counts one and two of the indictment because N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a(1) requires physical presence [of the defendant]" and "because the phrase `upon the actor's instruction' is unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied." He also argues that "the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss counts three through fourteen of the indictment [the endangering counts] because the State did not present any evidence that defendant was in the victims' physical presence." We reject the arguments, and affirm the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Marilyn C. Clark in her opinion of March 28, 2001, 361 N.J. Super. 502, 825 A.2d 1224, WL 34111611 (Law Div. 2001). See also State v. Hackett, 166 N.J. 66, 77-81, 764 A.2d 421 (2001).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Maxwell

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
Jun 24, 2003
361 N.J. Super. 401 (App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

State v. Maxwell

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES L. MAXWELL…

Court:Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

Date published: Jun 24, 2003

Citations

361 N.J. Super. 401 (App. Div. 2003)
825 A.2d 1162

Citing Cases

Petitions for Certification

PETITIONS FOR CERTIFICATION 361 N.J. Super. 135 824 A.2d 268 361 N.J. Super. 401 825 A.2d 1162 362 N.J.…

State v. Vasquez-Merino

Perez, 177 N.J. at 553 (quoting Perez, 349 N.J.Super. at 153). In addition, courts have held that N.J.S.A.…