862.225.1965
On April 2, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Nathaniel H. Russell, 481 N.J. Super 333 (App. Div. 2025), which addressed multiple legal issues stemming from a defendant’s convictions for terroristic threats, harassment, stalking, and retaliation for past official actions.
Facts and Procedural History of the Case
Defendant Nathaniel H. Russell was convicted for making a series of threatening phone calls to a municipal court judge, the victim in this case. These calls occurred following a virtual court proceeding where Russell had been involved. During the calls, Russell used profane and aggressive language, including threats of physical harm. The victim, fearing for his safety and the safety of his family, reported these threats to the police. The defendant’s actions escalated when the threats continued even after the initial charges were filed, leading to Russell’s conviction by a jury.
Legal Issue: Jury Instructions on Terroristic Threats
One of the key legal issues in this case was whether the jury was properly instructed on the necessary standard for determining terroristic threats. Russell argued that the jury was not given the proper instruction to assess whether a reasonable person in the victim’s position would have felt threatened by the defendant’s words. The Appellate Division held that the jury should have been instructed using the “reasonable victim” standard, as established in State v. Fair, 256 N.J. 213 (2024), which established a new rule of constitution dimension requiring that the jury assess the threats from the perspective of someone similarly situated to the victim. Since this instruction was not given, the Appellate Division reversed the terroristic threats convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Legal Issue: Terroristic Threats During a State of Emergency
Another critical issue in the case was the enhancement of Russell’s terroristic threats charges from third-degree to second-degree offenses due to the fact that the threats occurred during a state of emergency in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3(a). The Appellate Division agreed with Russell’s argument that there was no reasonable connection between the threats and the COVID-19 pandemic, which was the basis for the state of emergency. The Appellate Court found that the enhancement was improperly applied because the threats did not involve any conduct related to the pandemic or the state of emergency. Therefore, the Appellate Court reversed the second-degree enhancement, emphasizing that terroristic threats must have a rational relationship to the underlying emergency for the enhancement to apply.
Legal Issue: Merging of Charges
Russell also argued that his convictions for harassment, stalking, and retaliation for past official action should have been merged into a single charge. The Appellate Division rejected this argument, ruling that the offenses were distinct and based on separate criminal conduct that occurred at different times. The stalking charge, in particular, was related to the ongoing nature of the defendant’s conduct from 2021 to 2022. Additionally, the retaliation charge involved different legal elements than stalking and harassment, which warranted treating these offenses separately. The Appellate Court upheld the separate charges and declined to merge them.
Legal Issue: Recusal of the Atlantic County Judiciary
Russell raised the issue that the entire Atlantic County judiciary should have been recused due to the victim’s status as a municipal court judge. The Appellate Division found this argument unconvincing, stating that there was no evidence to suggest any bias or conflict of interest based solely on the victim’s position as a judge. As the recusal motion had not been raised in the trial court, the Appellate Division also noted that the defense should have raised the issue earlier. The court concluded that the defendant had received a fair trial and rejected the recusal claim.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways in New Jersey Criminal Law
The Appellate Division’s decision in State of New Jersey v. Nathaniel H. Russell underscores several important aspects of New Jersey criminal law, particularly in cases involving terroristic threats. First, it emphasizes the importance of proper jury instructions when assessing the credibility of threats, requiring that they be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person similarly situated to the victim. Additionally, the case highlights the limits of the second-degree enhancement for terroristic threats during a state of emergency, ruling that the enhancement requires a direct connection between the threat and the emergency. Finally, the decision reinforces the principle that criminal charges must be considered based on their individual elements, and claims of judicial bias should be raised early in the process.
In conclusion, the court’s reversal of the terroristic threats convictions and the remand for further proceedings ensure that this case will be reconsidered with the proper legal framework in mind, ensuring that justice is served in a fair and equitable manner.
Contact Bianchi Law Group for Legal Representation
Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.
No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.