State v. James Buckner (074390)

Supreme Court of New Jersey
121 A.3d 290, 223 N.J. 1, 2015 N.J. LEXIS 814 (2015)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The New Jersey Constitution's requirement that judges retire at age 70 does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting statutes that allow for the temporary recall of retired judges to serve within the judicial system.

Facts:

On March 21, 2010, the defendant attacked a woman in a mall parking lot in Cedar Knolls, placing her in a chokehold and demanding her purse.
Witnesses intervened, causing the defendant to flee, but he was identified and detained by police shortly thereafter.
The defendant faced criminal charges including robbery and aggravated assault arising from the attack.
The judge assigned to preside over the defendant's trial was a retired Superior Court Judge.
At the time of the trial, the presiding judge was 73 years old.
The judge was serving on a temporary basis pursuant to the Recall Statute, having been recalled to service by orders of the Supreme Court.
The defendant objected to the judge's participation, arguing that a judge over the age of 70 lacked the constitutional authority to preside over a jury trial.

Procedural Posture:

Defendant moved to disqualify the trial judge in the Superior Court (Law Division) on constitutional grounds.
The trial judge denied the motion to disqualify.
The jury convicted the defendant of robbery and assault.
The trial court sentenced the defendant to nine years in prison.
Defendant appealed the conviction and the denial of the disqualification motion to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction in a split decision, with the majority upholding the Recall Statute.
Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey as of right based on the dissent in the Appellate Division.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the New Jersey Constitution's provision that judges 'shall be retired upon attaining the age of 70 years' render the Recall Statute unconstitutional by preventing retired judges from presiding over criminal trials?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rabner

No, the Constitution's mandatory retirement provision does not bar the Legislature from authorizing temporary judicial recall. The Court began by emphasizing the strong presumption of validity attached to legislative enactments, noting that a law will only be voided if it is repugnant to the Constitution beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court analyzed the text of the Judicial Article, specifically the phrase 'shall be retired.' The majority reasoned that 'retired' in this context signifies the end of a tenured appointment and the commencement of a pension, but does not explicitly ban all future service. The Court distinguished between holding the office of a Superior Court judge (which carries tenure and salary) and serving as a recall judge (which is temporary, at the pleasure of the Court, and paid per diem). Furthermore, the Court examined the history of the 1947 Constitutional Convention, noting that the framers rejected earlier drafts that explicitly barred continuing in office, thereby implying an intent to leave the details of recall to the Legislature. Finally, the Court noted that the statute has been used without challenge for decades and does not violate the separation of powers because it does not interfere with the Governor's power to appoint new judges to fill vacancies.

Dissenting - Justice Albin

Yes, the Recall Statute is unconstitutional because the plain language of the Constitution mandates that judges must retire at age 70. The dissent argued that 'shall be retired' is a clear, declarative command that prohibits exercising judicial power beyond that age. Justice Albin contended that if the framers intended to allow recall, they would have included specific language to that effect, as they did in the Schedule Article for transitional judges. The dissent pointed out that other state constitutions explicitly provide for recall, whereas New Jersey's does not. Justice Albin criticized the majority for interpreting silence as authorization, arguing that the Legislature cannot grant the Supreme Court a power—appointing judges over 70—that the Constitution explicitly denies. While acknowledging the practical need for recall judges to fill vacancies, the dissent maintained that a constitutional amendment, not a statute, is the only legal way to achieve this.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the high threshold required to overturn a statute on constitutional grounds, emphasizing that legislative power is plenary unless expressly forbidden. By upholding the Recall Statute, the Court ensured the continued operation of the New Jersey judicial system, which relies heavily on retired judges to manage case backlogs. The ruling establishes a distinction between 'holding office' (which requires retirement at 70) and performing 'temporary service' (which does not), a nuance that expands the flexibility of the judiciary to utilize experienced jurists. It also signals a judicial willingness to look at historical context and long-standing practice when constitutional text is ambiguous or silent on a specific mechanism of governance.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. James Buckner (074390) (2015)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"