Appellate Court: Local teenager must give up DNA to state

By JAMES DeWEESEStaff Writer, (856) 794-5114

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division on Monday upheld a lower court's decision to require a 14-year-old Cumberland County boy to submit a DNA sample to a state database under a 2003 law.

The boy violated a six-month period of probation after being adjudicated delinquent of a crime that would have been considered a third-degree offense if he was an adult, making him eligible for the state DNA database law, which went into effect in September 2003, according to the Family Court judge who originally sentenced him.

The boy, identified as L.R. in court documents, was adjudicated delinquent after he used a screwdriver to scrape the paint on a teacher's car in the parking lot of Vineland's Rossi Intermediate School in April 2003.

In August 2003, less than six months after the screwdriver incident, prosecutors charged L.R. with burglary and possession of burglars' tools and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of criminal trespass.

The presiding Family Court judge imposed a period of probation. Because the earlier adjudication would have represented a third-degree criminal mischief offense if committed by an adult, the judge also ordered the boy to provide a sample of his DNA under the then-new state law.

Defense attorneys argued that the DNA database law was passed after the original criminal mischief charge and should not apply. They also argued that the boy's constitutional rights had been violated because he did not have a lawyer during a special hearing and raised other procedural concerns. They got a temporary stay on the DNA sample pending the outcome of an appeal.

Superior Court Appellate Division Judges Mary Catherine Cuff, Jack Lintner and William Gilroy disagreed with the defense, stating that the boy violated his probation after the law went into effect and that he would not have faced sampling if he'd successfully completed the six-month probationary period after the screwdriver adjudication. They also found that counsel is not necessary when a defendant does not face incarceration.

The judges' opinion is published, meaning that it can be cited as precedent in future cases.