II. EQUAL PROTECTION
A. General
Smith v. Robbins, 120 S.Ct. 746 (2000). As a
practical matter, the equal protection and due process
clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment largely converge to
require that a state’s procedure affords adequate and
effective appellate review to indigent defendants, and a
state’s procedure provides such review so long as it
reasonably ensures that an indigent’s appeal will be
resolved in a way that is related to the merit of that appeal.
State v. Oliver, 162 N.J. 580 (2000), held the Three
Strikes law, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.1a, was not subject to equal
protection challenge on basis that it vested arbitrary
discretion in a prosecutor to decide whether to charge a
defendant as three-strikes defendant; law was mandatory
once offender fell within scope of act.
Allah v. Dept. of Corrections, 326 N.J. Super. 543
(App. Div. 1999), concluded transfer of inmate to
Security Threat Group Management Unit (STGMU)
behavior modification program at Northern State Prison,
which was created to segregate individuals who were
either leaders or “core” members of particular gangs, did
not violate inmate’s equal protection rights.
Merola v. Dept. of Corrections, 285 N.J. Super. 501
(App. Div. 1995), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 519 (1996),
held State statutory prohibition against applying work
and commutation credits to murder defendant’s
mandatory minimum sentence did not violate equal
protection; classification in question was not suspect, and
rational basis existed for distinguishing between inmates
based on severity of crimes committed.
Percy v. Dept. of Corrections, 278 N.J. Super. 543
(App. Div. 1995), concluded security risks, scarce
resources and equal protection concerns were sufficient,
valid penological concerns which justified deference to
decision of Department of Corrections prohibiting
inmate from procreating through efforts to artificially
inseminate his wife, despite any constitutional right to
procreate.
Binkowski v. State, 322 N.J. Super. 359 (App. Div.
1999). Since Hunter Harassment Statute regulated only
conduct, and did not impermissibly endorse viewpoint of
hunters at expense of anti-hunting protestors, it did not
violate equal protection.
In State v. Zapata, 297 N.J. Super. 160 (App. Div.
1997), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 405 (1998), when
detective gave inadmissible testimony that he had made
over 100 arrests since defendants’ arrest, “including one
of the people that is on trial today,” it was not denial of
equal protection to grant mistrial motion of defendant to
whom detective was referring and to deny other
defendant’s mistrial motion, where trial court specifically
informed jury that detective was referring to one
defendant and not other; defendants were not similarly
situated.State v. Mortimer, 135 N.J. 517 (1994). Statute,
increasing penalty for certain harassment crimes if they
were committed with “purpose to intimidate an
individual or group of individuals because of race, color,
religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity,” had rational
relationship to legitimate state interest of protecting
citizens against bias-motivated crimes and, thus, did not
violate equal protection clause; statute criminalized bias-
motivated harassment to prevent conduct from occurring
and imposed heavy penalties for such conduct, effecting
deterrent and retributive policy, to discourage conduct’s
future occurrence.State in Interest of J.M., 273 N.J. Super. 593 (Ch. Div.
1994). Statute which provides for minimum term of
incarceration for juvenile who is adjudicated delinquent
for theft of motor vehicle if juvenile has previous
adjudication of delinquency for unlawful taking of motor
vehicle and prohibits credit for time served, does not serve
legitimate state interest, and violates equal protection
guarantee since there is no rational reason to distinguish
between adults and juveniles with regard to credit for
time served. See also State in the Interest of W.M., 147 N.J.
Super. 24, 370 A.2d 519 (App. Div. 1977).In State v. Baker, 270 N.J. Super. 55 (App. Div.), aff’d
o.b., 138 N.J. 89 (1994), defendant was not denied equal
protection guarantees of State or Federal Constitutions,
even though defendant’s sentence was longer than
codefendant’s sentence, where sentence ultimately
imposed upon defendant was only the statutorily
mandated minimum sentence, and sentence imposed
upon codefendant was illegal.State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20 (1992) held rational
relationship test applies when determining whether
classifications of offenders for purposes of fixing penalties
created by Legislature violates equal protection rights
under State Constitution. Legislature may provide
different punishments for offenders convicted of same
crimes so long as there is rational connection between
classification of offenders and proper legislative purpose.
Enhanced sentencing provision of state Comprehensive