A five-year State Prison offer does not necessarily mean a defendant should accept it.
We recently represented a 19-year-old with no prior criminal record who was charged with second-degree eluding after a dangerous police chase involving an allegedly stolen vehicle. The pursuit was captured on police video, the car crashed into a pole, and our client spent almost a week in jail after his arrest.
The State’s initial plea offer was five years in New Jersey State Prison.
We believed there was a better way to resolve the case.
We obtained our client’s release from jail, carefully reviewed the police video and identified an important issue concerning whether the State could prove that he was actually the driver. We then persuaded the prosecutor to allow him to apply for Pretrial Intervention (PTI), a diversionary program for first-time offenders.
Even when PTI initially rejected his application because of the seriousness of the charge, we continued to advocate for him.
Ultimately, our client was admitted into PTI. He successfully completed the two-year program, was never sentenced to State Prison and the criminal charges against him were dismissed.
A Police Chase Ends With Four Young People Under Arrest
Our client was 19 years old, lived at home with his mother and older sister, was working and continuing his education. He had never been arrested before.
Police received a report concerning a stolen vehicle and later located the car with four people inside. When officers activated their lights and sirens, the driver did not stop.
A police pursuit followed.
The car was speeding, crossed a double yellow line and continued until it struck a pole. Fortunately, no one was injured.
All four occupants immediately got out of the vehicle. Police believed our client had been driving.
He was charged with second-degree eluding under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b) and third-degree receiving stolen property under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-10.2(a).
These were serious charges for anyone, particularly a 19-year-old who had never before been involved in the criminal justice system.
Our First Priorities: Get Him Out of Jail and Review the Evidence
Our client was detained after his arrest and spent almost a week in jail.
Our first priority was getting him home.
We represented him at a detention hearing and obtained his release while the criminal charges were pending.
We then turned our attention to the evidence.
There was no question that the pursuit had occurred. The motor vehicle recording from the police car captured the chase, and officers’ body-worn cameras recorded their interactions with the occupants after the crash.
But watching the recordings carefully raised a different question:
Could the State prove that our client was the person driving the car?
Our client told us that he had been a passenger. Importantly, he had not given the police a statement after his arrest.
The officers believed our client was the person seen getting out of the driver’s side of the vehicle after the crash. But with four people getting out of the vehicle almost immediately, the police video did not clearly establish which person had actually been sitting in the driver’s seat.
That distinction mattered.
The State could prove our client was in the vehicle. To convict him of eluding, however, it had to prove that he was operating it.
The video did not give us an automatic defense. But it gave us an issue that mattered when evaluating the strength of the State’s case and negotiating an appropriate resolution.
Second-Degree Eluding Is a Serious Charge in New Jersey
New Jersey law makes it a crime for a driver to knowingly flee or attempt to elude police after receiving a signal to stop.
Eluding becomes a second-degree crime when the flight or attempt to elude creates a risk of death or injury to another person.
The circumstances of this pursuit were serious. The vehicle was speeding, crossed a double yellow line, failed to stop for police and eventually crashed into a pole.
We had to deal with those facts honestly.
Effective criminal defense does not mean ignoring bad evidence. It means determining what the State can prove, identifying the issues that matter and using them to pursue the best available result for the client.
In this case, we believed the uncertainty about the identity of the driver was significant. We also believed our client’s age, background and lack of any prior criminal history had to be considered in determining an appropriate resolution.
The Initial Offer Was Five Years in New Jersey State Prison
The prosecutor’s initial plea offer called for our client to serve five years in New Jersey State Prison.
We did not believe that was the right result for this case.
Our client had just spent almost a week in jail. For a 19-year-old who had never been arrested, the experience had a real impact on him. He understood that the decisions he made and the people he associated with could have consequences that might change the direction of his life.
He was working. He wanted to continue his education. He had a family supporting him and the ability to move forward from what had happened.
Rather than accept the five-year prison offer, we began discussing with the prosecutor whether our client could be considered for PTI.
Can You Get PTI for a Second-Degree Crime in New Jersey?
PTI allows certain defendants to resolve criminal charges through a period of supervision rather than a traditional conviction and sentence.
But PTI should never be assumed in a serious criminal case. Being young and having no prior criminal record does not automatically entitle someone to admission.
We knew that getting our client into PTI would require the prosecutor to look beyond the degree of the charge and consider the individual defendant and the particular evidence in the case.
We presented the reasons we believed PTI was appropriate, including our client’s age, lack of criminal history, employment, educational plans and potential for rehabilitation. We also raised the issue we had identified in the video evidence concerning whether the State could clearly prove he had been driving.
We persuaded the prosecutor to consent to our client applying for PTI.
But that did not end the fight.
PTI Rejected the Application. We Continued to Advocate for Our Client.
Our client’s PTI application was initially rejected because of the seriousness of the charge, but we did not believe that rejection should determine the outcome of the case. We continued our discussions with the State and again focused on both the evidence and our client’s personal circumstances.
Ultimately, the State agreed to allow our client to enter PTI and that decision changed the course of his case.
What Happened to the Guilty Plea?
As a condition of his admission into PTI, our client entered a guilty plea. The case was held open while he participated in the program. He was never sentenced.
Instead, he was placed into PTI for two years. He now had the opportunity to avoid a criminal conviction, but he had to do his part.
He did. Our client successfully completed the program, and the charges against him were dismissed.
The Result: From a Five-Year Prison Offer to Dismissal
Approximately four months after the case began, we were able to reach the PTI resolution before our client was indicted.
The difference between the State’s initial position and the ultimate outcome was significant.
Our client began the case in jail facing second-degree eluding and third-degree receiving stolen property. Ultimately, he was never sentenced and his case was dismissed.
For a 19-year-old at the beginning of his adult life, the result gave him an opportunity to continue his education, work and move forward without a criminal conviction following him.
Charged With Eluding or Another Second-Degree Crime in New Jersey?
Every case is different, and PTI is never guaranteed. The facts, criminal history, strength of the State’s evidence, prosecutor’s position and individual circumstances can all affect the available options.
This case involved difficult facts and significant evidence. We did not ignore those problems. We identified the issue in the State’s proofs that mattered, addressed the mitigation that made our client a good candidate for rehabilitation and pursued an alternative to a five-year prison sentence.