Thisopinion 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 STATE OF NEW JERSEY v.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

APRIL LARSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

January 6, 2017

Submitted December 13, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Somerset County, Municipal Appeal No. 9-15.

Warren L. Fink, attorney for appellant.

Michael H. Robertson, Acting Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Alexander Mech, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant April Larsen appeals from a March 3, 2015 Law Division order denying her municipal appeal and convicting her de novo of simple assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a), a disorderly persons offense.1

On this appeal, defendant presents the following points of argument

I. THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BELOW PROVIDED INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO CONVICT DEFENDANT AND, UPON ANALYSIS, THE EVIDENCE REQUIRES ACQUITTAL OF THE DEFENDANT.

A. The Applicable Standard On Appeal Is Whether Sufficient Credible Evidence Was Presented Below.

B. An Analysis of the Facts as Applied to the Simple Assault Statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a(1), Demonstrates that the Evidence was Insufficient to Convict the Defendant.

1. Subparagraph a(1) of the Statute Requires Defendant to Have Caused "bodily injury," but the Municipal Court Made No Finding Whatsoever of Bodily Injury on the Record and, Furthermore, there is Insufficient Evidence Below to Make a Finding of Bodily Injury, Especially Where the Evidence from the Medical Experts Demonstrates that No Bodily Injury Occurred.

2. The Record Below is Insufficient to Support a Finding that the Defendant Acted Recklessly.

3. The Court Below Committed Error Affecting the Sufficiency of the Credible Evidence on the Record When it Failed to Consider the Testimony of Jodi Britten.

4. The Court Below Committed Error Affecting the Sufficiency of the Credible Evidence When it Inaccurately Noted "the Lack of a Complete Examination by the School Nurse."

After reviewing the record, we find that the Law Division decision is supported by substantial credible evidence. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999). We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Kimarie Rahill in her written opinion issued with the order. We add these brief comments.

Defendant, a substitute teacher and classroom aide, was convicted in municipal court of simple assault on a six-year-old special needs student. According to the State's evidence, instead of allowing the regular classroom teacher to manage the child's behavior, defendant inappropriately intervened and the child was injured. The case hinged on the testimony of the regular teacher, who observed the incident and whose testimony the municipal judge found credible. Her testimony was corroborated by that of the child's mother, who observed her son's injuries and photographed them when he arrived home. The school nurse testified at the trial, but her testimony was not particularly helpful because she failed to thoroughly examine the child, including failing to take off his shirt.

On appeal to the Law Division, Judge Rahill considered the record de novo, including giving due weight to the municipal judge's evaluation of witness credibility. Judge Rahill found that the child was injured and that defendant recklessly inflicted the injuries. See N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1) (simple assault by recklessly causing bodily injury to another). Like the municipal judge, Judge Rahill noted the inadequacy of the school nurse's examination of the child.

Defendant argues that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence. However, after reading the entire record, we cannot agree. We find no basis to disturb Judge Rahill's factual determinations and, in light of those findings, her legal conclusions are unassailable. Defendant's appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

1 Defendant was fined $100 plus applicable fees and court costs.