State of New Jersey IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.

RECORD IMPOUNDED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

State of New Jersey IN THE

INTEREST OF A.M., a minor.

___________________________

January 9, 2017

Argued December 6, 2016 - Decided

Before Judges Yannotti and Gilson.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FJ-09-0906-15.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alison Perrone, Designated Counsel, on the brief).

Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Ryan J. Gaffney, Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

A.M., a juvenile, appeals his adjudication of delinquency for an act, which if committed by an adult, would constitute fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b). A.M. argues that there was insufficient credible evidence to support the adjudication. We disagree and affirm.

The charges against A.M. arose out of events that occurred on December 19, 2014, at approximately 2 p.m. The victim testified that when she was walking on Monroe Street in Hoboken towards a Shop-Rite, she noticed someone was walking close behind her. She then felt someone grab her buttocks, pull down her pants, tear her panties, and touch her buttocks. When she turned, she saw an individual running away. Although the victim was unable to identify the assailant, the police recovered two videos from surveillance cameras at the Shop-Rite and at a nearby light rail station.

The video from the Shop-Rite showed the victim walking down the street followed by another individual who was carrying a distinctive yellow backpack. The individual with the backpack then began to run in the opposite direction from the victim. The video from the light rail station showed the same individual with the distinctive yellow backpack.

Still photographs were captured from the videos and released to the public. Shortly after the release of those photographs, A.M. and his mother came to the Union City Police Station. A.M.'s mother informed the police that she believed the pictures showed her son and she also recognized a lunch bag that he was carrying which she had prepared for him. A.M. was then interviewed by Hoboken police detectives in the presence of his mother. After being informed of and waiving his Miranda1 rights, A.M. gave a voluntary statement. A.M. acknowledged that he was on Monroe Street walking towards the Shop-Rite at approximately 2 p.m. on December 19, 2014. He denied touching the victim's buttocks and claimed that he was walking closely behind a woman when he realized he was late for his train. A.M. claimed that he turned back towards the light rail station and began to run to catch his train.

The trial court conducted a bench trial and heard testimony from five witnesses, including the victim, investigating detectives, and A.M.'s mother. The State also presented the two videos. After considering the evidence, the trial court found A.M. guilty. The court then sentenced A.M. to a probationary term for either one year or until he completed sex offender treatment and other counselling. A.M. was also ordered to do thirty hours of community service and directed to have no contact with the victim.

On appeal, A.M. makes one argument

THE ADJUDICATION OF DELINQUENCY MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH THE JUVENILE'S GUILT OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL CONTACT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

Our review of a judge's decision following a bench trial is limited. The trial court's fact findings are "binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." State In re. M.M., 364 N.J. Super. 155, 165 (App. Div. 2003). Our deference to those findings "is especially appropriate 'when the evidence is largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility.'" Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998) (quoting In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 117 (1997)).

A person is guilty of criminal sexual contact if the actor "commit[ted] an act of sexual contact with the victim" using physical force or coercion. N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b).2

Here, the trial court placed its fact findings and legal conclusions on the record following the trial. The court also made credibility determinations. The court found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that A.M. had purposely and intentionally sexually contacted the victim using physical force. That force included pulling the victim's pants down and tearing the victim's panties.

The court went on to find that without consent, A.M. then purposely and intentionally touched the victim's buttocks. The trial judge found the testimony of the victim to be credible. The trial judge also relied on the videos showing that the perpetrator was carrying a distinctive yellow backpack. The trial judge went on to find that the testimony of A.M.'s mother corroborated that evidence. She testified that the video showed a person resembling her son and that the individual was carrying a lunch bag that was the same one that she had prepared for A.M.

The trial court's fact findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence. The trial court also correctly applied the law to the facts. Accordingly, because there was sufficient credible evidence to support the judge's finding that A.M. purposely committed an act of sexual contact with the victim using force, we affirm the trial court's order of adjudication.

Affirmed.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).

2 A person can also commit criminal sexual contact with a victim under other circumstances that are described in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c).