New Jersey Sex Crime Defense: Appellate Division Reinstates Indictment in State v. Canales

New Jersey Appellate Division Decision – New Jersey Sex Crime Defense

On March 14, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, decided State of New Jersey v. Thomas P. Canales, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2025), in which it reversed a trial court’s dismissal of an indictment under the doctrine of fundamental fairness. The ruling reinstates criminal charges against defendant Canales, who was accused of multiple sex crimes against minors and an adult female. This decision has significant implications for New Jersey sex crime defense, as it clarifies when an indictment can be dismissed after multiple trials.

Facts and Procedural History of the New Jersey Sex Crime Defense Case

Canales was indicted on seven counts, including sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, and criminal sexual contact. The charges stemmed from incidents involving three girls under thirteen and one adult woman over a four-month period.

His first trial ended in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury. At the second trial, the State presented additional evidence, including cell phone location data and testimony from an uncharged victim under N.J.R.E. 404(b). The jury convicted Canales on all counts, and he was sentenced to 17.5 years in prison.

On appeal, the Appellate Division overturned his conviction, ruling that the trial court improperly admitted other crimes evidence. After the case was remanded, the trial court dismissed the indictment under State v. Abbati, 99 N.J. 418 (1985), finding that a third trial would violate fundamental fairness. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court misapplied the Abbati standard.

First Trial and the Challenges in New Jersey Sex Crime Defense Cases

During the first trial, multiple victims testified, describing encounters with a man matching Canales’ description. Some victims were unable to identify him, while others provided inconsistent descriptions.

The State introduced cell phone data to place Canales near the crime scenes. However, the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a mistrial. This outcome highlights the complexities of New Jersey sex crime defense, where witness testimony and forensic evidence are critical in determining a defendant’s guilt.

Second Trial and Conviction in the New Jersey Sex Crime Defense Case

At the second trial, the State introduced additional evidence, including a location-tracking map using Canales’ phone records. The prosecution also presented testimony from B.V., a witness who described a similar uncharged sexual offense.

The defense argued that B.V.’s testimony was prejudicial and should not have been admitted. Despite these objections, the jury found Canales guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to a lengthy prison term. His attorneys appealed the conviction, arguing that the improper admission of other crimes evidence affected the jury’s decision.

Appellate Court’s Reasoning in the New Jersey Sex Crime Defense Case

On appeal from the second trial, the Appellate Division ruled that the trial court erred in admitting B.V.’s testimony, as it was not sufficiently linked to the offenses charged. The appellate court found that identity was a central issue and that three victims failed to identify Canales. Given these factors, the appellate court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

After the remand, the trial court dismissed the indictment under the fundamental fairness doctrine. The State appealed, arguing that the dismissal was improper.

Reversal of Dismissal: What It Means for New Jersey Sex Crime Defense

The Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decision to dismiss the indictment. It found that the trial court misapplied Abbati and failed to consider the strong evidence against Canales.

The appellate court emphasized that public interest in prosecuting sexual offenses outweighs the defendant’s claim of unfairness. It noted that Canales was no longer incarcerated and that retrying the case would not impose undue hardship.

This decision reinforces the principle that dismissing an indictment is an extreme measure reserved for cases where conviction is highly unlikely. The ruling underscores the challenges in New Jersey sex crime defense, particularly when a case involves multiple trials and complex evidentiary issues.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways for New Jersey Sex Crime Defense

The Appellate Division’s decision in State v. Canales reaffirms the State’s authority to retry defendants even after a mistrial and a vacated conviction. It highlights the importance of strong evidentiary support in New Jersey sex crime defense cases, particularly when identity is in dispute.

The ruling also clarifies that fundamental fairness does not automatically prevent retrial after multiple proceedings. For defendants facing sex crime charges, this case underscores the need for skilled legal representation to challenge improper evidence and procedural errors.

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.