to give limiting instruction on use of CSAAS testimony);
State v. Michaels, 264 N.J. Super. 579 (App. Div. 1993),
aff’d 136 N.J. 299 (1994)(psychologist’s testimony that
conduct of children was consistent with child sexual abuse
was inadmissible); see generally, State v. Hines, 303 N.J.
Super. 311 (App. Div. 1997) (finding reversible error in
trial’s court’s refusal to allow defendant to offer evidence to
post-traumatic stress disorder; Rape Trauma Syndrome
discussed).
In aggravated sexual assault case, defendant’s right to
confrontation was not violated by 8-year-old victim’s
closed circuit television testimony caused by victim’s fear
of the courtroom and defendant; also held that victim’s
videotaped statement was admissible under the “tender
years” exception of hearsay rule. State v. Smith, 158 N.J.
376 (1999). In State v. Crandall, 120 N.J. 649 (1990), it
was held that child’s closed circuit television testimony
caused by victim’s fear of defendant does not violate
Confrontation Clause. See also Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S.
805 (1990); Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990).
Special education student who was victim of sexual
assault classes was competent to testify because he
understood that to tell the truth was the “right” thing to do,
and that he could be punished if he did not tell the truth.
State v. Walker, 325 N.J. Super. 35 (App. Div. 1999), certif.
denied 163 N.J. 74 (2000).
For cases on fresh complaint evidence, see State v.
Bethune, 121 N.J. 137 (1990); State v. Hill, 121 N.J. 162
(1990); State v. Lyles, 291 N.J. Super. 517, 529 (App.
Div.1996), certif. denied 148 N.J. 460 (1997).
Expert testimony not necessary for jury to conclude
that victim’s testimony of incapacitating mental anguish is
credible. State v. Walker, 216 N.J. Super. 39 (App. Div.),
certif. denied 108 N.J. 179 (1987).
Physical appearance alone may be sufficient to prove
age beyond a reasonable doubt. State in Interest of A.N.,
267 N.J. Super. 158 (App. Div. 1993)
Court may order physical examination of child sex
abuse victim only when satisfied that defendant has made
sufficient showing that such examination can produce
competent evidence with substantial probative worth.
State v. D.R.H., 127 N.J. 249 (1992).
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2.2 does not violate due process and
provides for testing of juvenile or adult sex offenders for
AIDS and HIV, which are among the limited
circumstances in which suspicionless searches are
warranted. The results of these tests are generally required
to be kept confidential and may not be used at trial. The
tests will be ordered at the discretion of the trial court if the
State shows the existence of probable cause to believe there
was a transmission of bodily fluids during commission of
the offense. State in Interest of J.G., N.S. and J.T., 151 N.J.
565 (1997).VI. SENTENCING (See also, SENTENCING, this
Digest)
A. Presentence EvaluationWhenever a person is convicted of aggravated sexual
assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2a), sexual assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-
2b), aggravated criminal sexual contact (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-
3a), kidnapping (N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1c(2)), endangering the
welfare of a child (N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4a or b(4)), or any
attempt to commit such crimes, the trial court must order
the Department of Corrections to complete a psychologi-
cal examination of the offender, unless the offender is
sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole.
The examination is required to determine three issues: (1)
whether the offender’s conduct is characterized by a pattern
of repetitive compulsive behavior; (2) whether he is
amenable to sex offender treatment; and (3) whether he is
willing to participate in that treatment. N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1.
The examination must be conducted within 30 days after
receipt of the Presentence Report, and a written report of
the results sent to the court. N.J.S.A. 2C: 47-2.If the examination reveals that the offender is repetitive
and compulsive, is amenable to sex offender treatment, and
is willing to participate in that treatment, the court must re-
examine the report and make its own findings. N.J.S.A.
2C:47-3a. If the court agrees with the report’s findings, it
must sentence the offender to a term of incarceration to be
served in the custody of the Adult Diagnostic and
Treatment Center (ADTC) for sex offender treatment or
probation conditioned upon outpatient psychological or
psychiatric treatment. N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3b (removing
discretion to sentence to ADTC previously accorded to
court under State v. Chapman, 95 N.J. 582 (1984); State v.
Hamm, 207 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 1986)). An offender
sentenced to seven years or less must be confined at ADTC
as soon as practicable. N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3h(1); see State v.
Falcone, 211 N.J. Super. 685 (App. Div. 1986) (if ADTC is
filled to capacity and there is a waiting list for admission,
the offender may by incarcerated in county jails pending
availability of space at ADTC); see also, State v. Howard,
110 N.J. 113 (1988) (waiting period at county jail not
unconstitutional). An offender sentenced to more than
seven years does not immediately go to ADTC, but instead