In the Matter of Commitment of Calu, 301 N.J. Super.
at 26, the Appellate Division found that the presumption
of open hearings did not apply to periodic review hearings
where the issue of release into the community is not a
factor. However, the court explained that “release” is not
synonymous with and limited to the discharge from an
institution. Id. In fact, a “release” includes a committee’s
unescorted access to the community outside the
institution. Id. In such a case, the committee would have
the burden to show that the hearing should be held in
camera. Id. at 26-27.
Further note, commitment following an acquittal by
reason of insanity is an official detention within the
meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5a, which defines the crime
of escape. See also State v. Moore, 192 N.J. Super. 437, 441
(App. Div. 1983), certif. denied, 96 N.J. 271 (1984).
Thus, an unauthorized departure from such a detention
may be prosecuted as an escape. Id. at 441, 443.
C. Statements for Purposes of Examination or Treatment
Inadmissible Except on Issue of Mental Condition
(N.J.S.A. 2C:4-10)
A statement made by a person subjected to a
psychiatric or psychological examination or treatment
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:4-5, 2C:4-6, or 2C:4-9 for the
purposes of such examination or treatment is not
admissible against the person in any criminal proceeding
on any issue other than that of mental condition.
N.J.S.A. 2C:4-10. However, it shall be admissible upon
that issue, whether or not it would be deemed a privileged
communication. Id. If a statement constitutes an
admission of guilt of the crime charged, or an element
thereof, it is only admissible where it appears at trial that
conversations with the examining psychiatrist or
psychologist were necessary to enable the expert to form
an opinion as to a matter in issue. Id.
INTENSIVE SUPERVISIONINTENSIVE SUPERVISIONINTENSIVE SUPERVISIONINTENSIVE SUPERVISIONINTENSIVE SUPERVISION
PROGRAM (ISP)PROGRAM (ISP)PROGRAM (ISP)PROGRAM (ISP)PROGRAM (ISP)(For general rules and provisions, see
R. 3:21-10(b)(5) and (E); N.J.S.A. 2C:43-11)
In response to the prison overcrowding crisis, the
New Jersey Supreme Court created the Intensive
Supervision Program (ISP) in 1983. The Court derived
its powers from Article VI, Section II, Paragraph 3 of the
New Jersey Constitution. Subsequently, the Chief
Justice issued an Order that relaxed R. 3:21-10b(1) to
permit entry into the program, established a three-judge
ISP resentencing panel and approved commencement of
the program itself. On July 22, 1983, R. 3:21-10b was
amended and Paragraph (e), was adopted, effective
September 12, 1983 to provide for the establishment of
the ISP program. That same year, the Legislature
formally approved the Program and allocated operation
funds.In 1993, the Legislature adopted L. 1993, C. 123, §
2, now codified as N.J.S.A. 2C:43-11, to clarify ISP
eligibility restrictions, as well as procedural matters. The
statute currently restricts an inmate from participating in
ISP if he: 1) is serving a sentence for a first degree crime;
2) is substantially likely to be involved in organized
crime; see also N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1a(5); 3) is serving any
sentence with statutorily or judicially mandated parole
ineligibility; 4) previously completed a program of
intensive supervision, or 5) has previously been convicted
of a first-degree crime in New Jersey, or in another
jurisdiction committed a crime that would constitute a
first-degree crime in New Jersey and was released within
five years the offense for which he is seeking ISP.Additionally, inmates serving state prison sentences
for violent crimes such as homicide, robbery, aggravated
assault and sex offenses are ineligible for ISP
participation. Inmates serving sentences for non-violent
crimes who have a history of violent or assaultive conduct
are also generally excluded. The Program is geared for
inmates serving time for non-violent crimes who have no
history of violent or assaultive behavior.The 1993 adoption, however, eliminated the ISP bar
against all first or second degree offenders. Certain
groups of second degree offenders may participate, absent
prosecutorial objection. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-11b. The 1993
adoption also provides for victim input in deciding
whether or not to sentence the inmate to ISP.