Juveniles Could Still Be Tried as Adults for Hotel Arson

COURT HOUSE — Three teens charged with setting ablaze a Wildwood hotel a year ago had their cases sent back to Family Court, where a judge must reconsider his previous decision not to release them to adult court for trial.
The three teens, who were 16 and over, and two younger juveniles were allegedly drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana in the Doris Vernon Hotel at 306 E. Pine Ave. during the evening hours of Jan. 4, 2009, when they “all decided to burn the place down,” court documents stated.
Firefighters from Wildwood battled the blaze, which was set on the second floor using paper, rum and a lighter. The unoccupied hotel suffered damage to the first, second and third floors.
Based on graffiti “tags” found in the burnt hotel, Wildwood police were able to link the juveniles to this incident as well as numerous other acts of vandalism reported at other area properties around that time.
During interviews, the teens implicated themselves and each other in the various offenses. Two of the teens were additionally charged with assaulting one of their associates, 18-year-old Justin Ort, for providing information regarding the crimes to police.
On Feb. 3, prosecutors filed waiver motions seeking approval from the Family Court judge to prosecute the three older juveniles as adults.
Charges for all three regarding the fire included aggravated arson, arson, failure to report a fire and criminal mischief. One juvenile was charged with witness tampering for the assault on Ort. All three were additionally charged with multiple counts of burglary, criminal mischief and theft for the incidents at other local properties. There were about 50 counts in all.
Two of the three had prior experience with the juvenile justice system.
Along with the waiver motions, prosecutors submitted to the court approved “statements of reasons” for each defendant. Those statements elaborated on the prosecutor’s decision to seek waivers to adult court for all three juveniles and their many charges, both regarding the hotel fire and the other incidents.
On March 4, however, an assistant prosecutor amended the motions to include only charges related to the hotel fire, but did not amend the statements of reasons.
The judge denied the prosecutor’s waiver motions largely because the statements included references to the property crimes other than those committed in the hotel fire.
“It has been clearly and convincingly established that the prosecutor’s decision to waive is so wide off the mark that fundamental fairness and justice require judicial intervention,” the judge concluded. “I find that the decision to waive reflects a patent and gross abuse of discretion.”
The Prosecutor’s Office appealed the judge’s decision.
A three-judge Appeals Court panel said the Family Court judge overstepped his authority by denying the prosecutor’s request to try the juveniles in adult criminal court.
“The court’s view of the decision as harsh or unwise is not material, because the decision is not the court’s to make,” the appeals court stated.
Rather, the judge’s only determination regarding the prosecutor’s decision on waiver to adult court should be whether it would be contrary to the predominant views of other prosecutors applying the same guidelines. The judge was actually required to grant the motions unless the juveniles “showed by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecutor’s decision constituted a patent and gross abuse of discretion.”
The appeals panel said it was error to deny the unapproved, modified waiver motions without determining whether the prosecutor approved the modified motions and without giving the prosecutor an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in the statements of reasons that the court perceived.
“Accordingly, we reverse and direct the court to permit the prosecutor to approve and submit amended statements of reasons that are wholly relevant to the modified waiver motions or, in the alternative, withdraw the motions,” the appeals court decision read.