Recent New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – Juvenile Delinquency in New Jersey 

On September 4, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division decided State in the Interest of M.P.,  479 N.J. Super. 492 (App. Div. 2024), in which it reaffirmed and clarified the standard for public disclosure of juvenile delinquency adjudications under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(f). The Appellate Division held that the juvenile, M.P., had not demonstrated the “specific and extraordinary harm” required to prevent disclosure of his identity following his juvenile delinquency adjudication. 

Facts and Procedural History of Juvenile Delinquency in New Jersey 

M.P., a sixteen-year-old, was arrested for bringing a loaded handgun to school. Although he did not use or threaten anyone with the weapon, he later pled guilty to unlawful possession of a handgun, a second-degree offense if committed by an adult. Pursuant to a plea agreement, M.P. received two years of probation, but the court deviated from the agreement by not imposing thirty days of juvenile detention. 

During the juvenile disposition hearing, M.P.’s defense counsel informally sought to prevent public disclosure of M.P.’s identity, mistakenly assuming the sealed records could not be disclosed, and did not request M.P.’s name be withheld from the public. Two weeks later, the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office (MCPO) published a press release revealing M.P.’s name, school, and details of his adjudication. As a result, more than ten articles were published on the Internet by multiple media outlets reporting M.P.’s delinquency and his name. For reasons undisclosed in the record, the MCPO removed the press release from its website six days later after M.P. notified the trial court of the publications.  

The trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether disclosing M.P.’s identity and the adjudication to the public violated N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(f) by causing him “substantial likelihood” of “specific and extraordinary harm.” At the hearing, M.P. argued the trial court should order his name be withheld from the public and the reporting media outlets “delete” his name from their published articles. The trial court denied M.P.’s application. 

Legal Issue of Public Disclosure in Juvenile Delinquency in New Jersey 

On appeal, the Appellate Division was asked to reconsider its decision in State in the Interest of K.B., 304 N.J. Super. 628 (App. Div. 1997), where the court held that juveniles adjudicated delinquent who seek nondisclosure of their name must demonstrate harm specific to their individual circumstances. M.P. claimed that under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(f), he had demonstrated a substantial likelihood that specific and extraordinary harm would result from such public disclosure. M.P. argued that, in light of the rapid growth of the Internet, the harm caused by disclosing his name was far greater now, than when K.B. was decided in 1997, “when online news reporting was nascent.” He claimed that widespread online reporting of his juvenile record would permanently damage his chances for future employment and educational opportunities. 

Court’s Holding and Reasoning on Juvenile Delinquency in New Jersey 

The Appellate Division reaffirmed K.B., ruling that M.P. had not shown harm specific to his individual circumstances. The Appellate Division noted that the social stigma and potential difficulties in future employment or college admissions are challenges faced by all juveniles who are publicly identified in serious delinquency cases. These consequences are not extraordinary or unique to M.P., even in light of the expanded reach of the Internet. The court emphasized that, under N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(f), public disclosure of a juvenile’s identity is mandatory unless specific and extraordinary harm can be proven, and no such harm was demonstrated in this case. Thus, given that K.B. was based on its interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60(f), a statute which still governs the disclosure of a juvenile delinquency adjudication and has not been amended to reflect the Internet’s impact, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order because M.P. failed to show how disclosure of his name would violate the statute. 

Key Takeaways of the Juvenile Delinquency in New Jersey Case 

In conclusion, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision to allow public disclosure of M.P.’s identity. The court emphasized that the statutory standard for withholding a juvenile’s name requires showing individualized harm beyond the general consequences of public disclosure. This ruling reaffirms that public interest in serious juvenile offenses outweighs confidentiality unless a juvenile can demonstrate specific, significant harm. This precedent will continue to guide juvenile delinquency cases in New Jersey moving forward. 

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.