NJ Appellate Court Vacates PTI Order in High-Speed Eluding Case
Docket No. A-1790-24
Decided October 3, 2025
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Court of New Jersey decided the State’s appeal from an order enrolling defendant, N.C., into the Pretrial Intervention program (PTI) over its objection.
On June 26, 2024, at approximately 10:50 p.m. a patrolman observed defendant’s vehicle passing other cars at a high rate of speed while he was on patrol traveling south on County Road 657 in Cape May Court House. Defendant began driving behind the patrolman, at times dangerously close to his vehicle. The officer allowed defendant to pass and then conducted a motor vehicle stop. Defendant pulled over but refused to identify herself. When the officer attempted to open defendant’s locked driver’s side door, she fled. Defendant stopped again a short distance from the original stop. The officer approached the vehicle, ordered defendant out of the vehicle, and informed her she was under arrest. Defendant failed to comply and, after another officer arrived, again fled the scene. The officers did not pursue defendant’s vehicle.
A Sergeant observed defendant’s vehicle traveling at an excessive rate of speed in a reckless manner southbound on Route 9 in Cape May Court House. He followed defendant onto the Garden State Parkway and initiated a motor vehicle stop. Defendant exited the highway and pulled over. County dispatch advised the Seargeant that the same vehicle had just fled from a traffic stop. When the Seargeant attempted to open her locked driver’s side door, defendant fled once again, and officers did not pursue the vehicle.
The Sergeant then made contact with the vehicle’s registered owner, defendant’s father, who informed him that he and defendant were at a hotel in North Wildwood. After he arrived at the hotel, defendant refused to come out of her room. Defendant’s father invited the Sergeant into the hotel room where he found defendant lying in bed and informed her she was being arrested for eluding a lawful traffic stop on two occasions. Defendant argued with the Sergeant, advised him that she would not submit to arrest, and began removing an unknown item from a bag. After a brief struggle, defendant was taken into custody.
Shortly after being placed on pretrial monitoring after the court denied the State’s motion to detain her pretrial, defendant violated her pretrial monitoring by being arrested on a new charge and failing to schedule a mental health evaluation as required.
After being indicted on second-degree eluding and third-degree resisting arrest, On November 20, 2024, defendant applied for admission into PTI, accompanied by a statement of extraordinary and compelling circumstances that justify consideration of the application as required by R. 3:28-3(b)(1). Defendant argued “essentially this matter involves a situation whereby her reaction to the stop triggered her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which stems from her being abducted by the ringleader of a sex trafficking ring in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” In support of her claim, defendant cited a news article from 2019 and provided medical records establishing that she was diagnosed with PTSD and other mental illnesses, received inpatient behavioral health treatment on two occasions in 2024, and that her parents reported her involvement in a sex trafficking matter to healthcare providers.
On January 8, 2025, defendant moved to compel her admission to PTI. On February 3, 2025, the State objected to defendant’s application finding she failed to show extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying her admission. The State noted that it considered each of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12(e). The State also acknowledged defendant’s mental health history and noted her inpatient admissions but determined that “defendant’s explanation for her behavior is a stretch at best” and she “presented no evidence besides her parents’ belief regarding her involvement in that sex trafficking matter.”
After hearing oral argument on February 5, 2025, the court entered an order granting defendant’s motion, supported by a written opinion on February 14, 2025. In its written opinion, the trial court determined the State did consider each factor but disagreed with its evaluation and weighing of the relevant factors. The trial court determined that the State’s decision subverts the underlying goals of PTI. Defendant has clearly and convincingly shown that the State’s decision was a patent and gross abuse of discretion and a clear error of judgment. The State subsequently appealed.
On appeal, the State contended that the court improperly found it abused its discretion in refusing to consent to defendant’s admission to PTI. Since defendant was charged with a second-degree crime for which there is a presumption of incarceration, she was ineligible for PTI without prosecutor consent to consideration of the application.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court determined that the State’s decision did not amount to a clear error of judgment or patent and gross abuse of discretion. As a result, the court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case back to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The Appellate Court noted that in its February 3, 2025 letter objecting to defendant’s admission to PTI, the State evaluated each of the relevant factors and provided an explanation including the factual support for the weight it afforded each factor. The court articulated that the trial court judge instead of applying a deferential standard of review as required, the trial court assessed the case as if it stood in the shoes of the State, disagreed with the weight afforded certain factors by the State, and imposed its own subjective weighing of the relevant factors. Furthermore, the trial court did not consider defendant was required to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling circumstances that justified consideration of the application, and the State determined she failed to do that. Thus, the Appellate Court vacated the trial court’s February 14, 2025 order enrolling defendant into the PTI program.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions to appeal the State’s denial of PTI. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.
