In this interlocutory appeal, the court considers the propriety of a bench warrant issued by the Law Division following defendant's failure to appear in person for a pretrial conference, even though he appeared virtually at this conference and nearly all prior court hearings. A non-citizen of the United States and Mexican national, defendant was deported after he was indicted for third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1), and fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(b). The motion judge issued the bench warrant, at the State's request, to serve as a detainer should defendant illegally reenter the United States or if the State elected to extradite defendant from Mexico. The State thereafter acknowledged it was unlikely to extradite defendant on the third- and fourth-degree charges. The motion judge denied defendant's ensuing motion to vacate the bench warrant and dismiss the indictment.
On appeal, the court affirmed the order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, but reversed and remanded for the motion judge to vacate the bench warrant and permit defendant to appear remotely at all proceedings, including trial. The court was persuaded, under the evolving jurisprudence, the judge erroneously denied defendant's reasonable request to appear virtually at an otherwise in-person trial in view of defendant's inability to legally reenter the United States and physically appear in court. The court concluded defendant's virtual appearance is a reasonable accommodation given the circumstances presented in this case, not only to afford defendant an opportunity to contest the charges, but also to ensure the victim's rights are protected.