State v. Jones, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2025).  Recovery Court, formerly known as Drug Court, is a diversionary program involving intensive supervision and other techniques intended to lead to an ultimate expungement of criminal convictions in many cases.  Judge Natali’s opinion for the Appellate Division in this case today addressed one aspect of the criteria for admission to Recovery Court. 

The question in the case was a purely legal one of statutory interpretation.  Applying de novo review, the Appellate Division affirmed the ruling of Judge Robert Hanna in the Law Division on that issue, repeatedly recognizing the judge by name, substantially for the reasons that Judge Hanna gave.  But Judge Natali’s opinion ran to 25 pages, as he methodically went through a number of principles of statutory interpretation that supported the result.  While his opinion is well worth reading in full, his first and last paragraphs captured the essence of the issue and the rationale for the panel’s ruling.  The opinion began:

“We granted leave to appeal to again resolve an issue of statutory interpretation involving a provision of our Criminal Code, specifically N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14, which addresses the admission criteria to Recovery Court.  Judge Robert M. Hanna rejected the State’s proposed construction that defendant was legally ineligible for admission into Recovery Court under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(a)(5), which bars applicants if they ‘possess[ed] a firearm at the time of the present offense . . . [or] at the time of any pending criminal charge.’  In rejecting the State’s interpretation of the second clause of the statute, the judge concluded the phrase ‘at the time of any pending charge’ bars only applicants: (1) charged with committing a firearms offense and, (2) whose firearms charges remain pending at the time of the Recovery Court application.  As defendant's gun charges, while at one time ‘pending,’ had been resolved when he applied to Recovery Court for a different offense not involving a firearm, the judge concluded he was legally eligible.”

Judge Natali’s opinion concluded as follows, summarizing the standards of statutory interpretation that consumed much of the opinion and supported the panel’s affirmance of the result below:

“In sum, we are in full accord with Judge Hanna's decision to admit defendant to Track One Recovery Court.  A firearms charge must still be pending at the time a defendant seeks admission into Recovery Court.  The State's interpretation of subsection (a)(5): renders its first clause superfluous; interposes a restriction not specified by the Legislature; is inconsistent with previous definitions of the same term in subsection (a)(7) under [State v.] Ancrum[, 449 N.J. Super. 526 (App. Div. 2017)]; and departs from the clearly defined legislative intent to expand access to Recovery Court.”