PRETRIAL INTERVENTIONPRETRIAL INTERVENTIONPRETRIAL INTERVENTIONPRETRIAL INTERVENTIONPRETRIAL INTERVENTION
I. AUTHORIZATION
Pretrial intervention (hereinafter PTI) is governed by
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12 to 22, R. 3:28 and the Guidelines
appertaining thereto. Under R. 3:28 an eligible
defendant may, with consent of the prosecutor and
recommendation of the program director, postpone
criminal proceedings and participate in a rehabilitative
program for a period not to exceed three years. At the
conclusion of this period, or earlier upon motion of the
criminal division manager and consent of both the
prosecutor and defendant, the judge shall make one of the
following recommendations: (1) have the charges
dismissed; (2) extend defendant’s participation in the
program for an additional period of time not to exceed
three years; or (3) have the charges proceed against
defendant in the ordinary course.
II. PURPOSE OF PTI
R. 3:28, Guideline 1, delineates five specific purposes
of PTI. However, in essence, PTI serves a dual purpose:
to afford rehabilitative services to appropriate candidates
and to relieve the already overburdened criminal justice
system by avoiding the prosecution of “victimless”
offenses, thereby freeing the courts. State v. Caliguiri,
158 N.J. 28, 50 (1999) (citing State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J.
236, 247 (1995)).
III. TIME FOR APPLICATION
Application for admission to PTI should be
expeditiously made and acted upon by all parties
concerned so as to relieve defendant from the anxiety of
facing prosecution and to enable rehabilitative processes
to commence at an early date. State v. Maguire, 168 N.J.
Super. 109, 116 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 81 N.J. 408
(1979). An application must, however, be filed not later
than 28 days after the indictment is returned. Where the
application is filed after an indictment has been returned,
the PTI Program should complete its evaluation and
make its recommendation within 25 days. The
prosecutor should complete a review and advise
defendant within 14 days thereafter. An appeal by
defendant to the trial court shall be brought within 10
days after the rejection notice, and should be determined
either before or at the pretrial conference. R. 3:28,
Guideline 6; see State v. Halm, 319 N.J. Super. 569, 578-
79, (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 131 (1999).
IV. ELIGIBILITY FOR PTI
In general, any defendant accused of any crime is
eligible for PTI. R. 3:28. However, there are certain
instances in which an offender may not be eligible, or
where a presumption against admission exists:A. Previously Diverted DefendantsIf defendant was previously diverted from regular
criminal prosecution under the Controlled Dangerous
Substances Act pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:36A-1 (formerly
N.J.S.A. 24:21-27), or previously diverted under PTI, he
or she is no longer eligible for PTI. See R. 3:28, Guideline
3(g); N.J.S.A. 2C:43-12g; State v. Johnson, 282 N.J.
Super. 296 (App. Div. 1995); State v. Collins, 180 N.J.
Super. 190, 193 (App. Div. 1981), aff’d 90 N.J. 449
(1982). However, while a defendant may be ineligible
for diversion pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:36A-1 because, for
example, he or she is a second offender, that defendant
may still be eligible for diversion under PTI. In State v.
Collins, 90 N.J. at 452-53, the Supreme Court noted that
the two programs were meant to exist contemporane-
ously, and if a defendant was precluded from diversion
under the Act, that did not necessary preclude relief
under PTI.B. Minor ViolationsPTI is designed for defendants who have committed
criminal or penal offenses; thus, it is generally not
available to defendants who have committed minor
violations, where the likely disposition would be a
suspended sentence without probation, or a fine, or
where the offense violates an ordinance, health code or
similar provision. R. 3:28, Guideline 3(d).In State v. Senno, 79 N.J. 216 (1979), the Supreme
Court of New Jersey held that PTI programs could
properly exclude defendants charged with non-
indictable offenses and that the decision to do so is up to
each county, subject to the Court’s approval. Such
exclusion was found to be entirely consistent with the
goals of PTI and did not violate equal protection rights.
See State v. DiCosmo, 188 N.J. Super. 298 (Law Div.
1982) (holding that defendant was excluded from PTI,
notwithstanding his original, indictable charge of assault
on a police officer, which was later administratively
downgraded to a disorderly persons offense); see also State
v. Raupp, 160 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 1978) (holding
defendant ineligible for admission into PTI for motor
vehicle violation even though some violations carried a
mandatory custodial sentence).