Read the full stored bill text
S4417 1R FISCAL ESTIMATE
LEGISLATIVE FISCAL ESTIMATE
[First Reprint]
SENATE, No. 4417
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
222nd LEGISLATURE
DATED: JUNE 23, 2026
SUMMARY
Synopsis:
Requires jury, rather than court, to determine whether
certain defendants are persistent offenders.
Type of Impact:
Annual State expenditure increase.
Agencies Affected:
The Judiciary; Office of the Public Defender; counties.
Office of
Legislative Services Estimate
Fiscal Impact
Annual�
�
State Expenditure Increase
Indeterminate
Local Expenditure Increase
Indeterminate
�
The Office of Legislative Services (OLS) finds that this bill
will result in indeterminate annual cost increases to the State.� The bill
requires the jury in a criminal case, rather than the judge, to determine
whether certain defendants are persistent offenders subject to an extended term
of imprisonment, which is likely to extend jury deliberations.� The judge�s
bench time as well as the workload of public defenders will also increase in
tandem with the length of the jury deliberations.� This may result in increased
administrative costs and judicial workload.�
�
Additionally, the OLS notes that per the bill, if the defendant
waives the right to a jury trial, the court would be required to find beyond a
reasonable doubt that the enhancing facts existed, which could also result in
additional bench time and administrative costs.� The OLS, however, does not
have any data to indicate the number of defendants waiving their right to a
jury trial.
�
The OLS notes that the county prosecutors may see an increase in
administrative costs and workload due to the provision requiring that the grand
jury indictment must now include the predicate enhancing fact and that these
must be presented to the grand jury.
BILL DESCRIPTION
����� This bill requires the jury in a criminal case, rather
than the judge, to determine whether certain defendants are persistent
offenders subject to an extended term of imprisonment. The bill is intended to
conform the provisions of several statutes to recent rulings by the United
States Supreme Court and New Jersey Supreme Court.
����� Under current law, upon application of the prosecutor,
the judge may sentence a person convicted of a crime of the first, second, or
third degree to an extended term of imprisonment if the judge finds that the
defendant is a persistent offender.� The statute defines a persistent offender
as �a person who at the time of the commission of the crime is 21 years of age
or over, who has been previously convicted on at least two separate occasions
of two crimes, committed at different times, when [the person] was at least 18
years of age, if the latest in time of these crimes or the date of the
defendant's last release from confinement, whichever is later, is within 10
years of the date of the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced.�
����� In
Erlinger v. United States
, 602
U.S.
821 (2024), a case involving the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, the United
States Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United
States Constitution require a unanimous jury to determine beyond a reasonable
doubt whether a defendant�s past offenses were committed on �separate
occasions.�� The New Jersey Supreme Court, in
State v. Carlton
, 262
N.J.
629 (2026), called on the Legislature to promptly amend the New Jersey
persistent offender statute to comply with the ruling of the United States
Supreme Court and provide clear direction to the courts, prosecutors, and
defense attorneys.
����� The bill provides that the court may sentence a person
convicted of a crime of the first, second, or third degree to an extended term
of imprisonment only if the grounds demonstrating that the defendant is a
persistent offender have been established in a separate proceeding before the
jury, and the jury unanimously finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the
enhancing facts existed. The proceeding would be conducted after the jury finds
the defendant guilty.�
����� The bill also provides that, in order for the court to
have the option to sentence a defendant to an extended term in a case where a
grand jury presented an indictment, the predicate enhancing facts must have
been presented to the grand jury and charged in that indictment.� If the
defendant waives the right to a jury trial, the court would need to find beyond
a reasonable doubt that the enhancing facts existed.� If the defendant pleads
guilty to the substantive crime, the defendant would need to knowingly and
voluntarily admit to the enhancing facts in order for the court to have the
option to sentence the defendant to an extended term.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
����� None received.
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
����� The OLS finds that this bill will result in
indeterminate annual cost increases to the State.� The bill requires the jury
in a criminal case, rather than the judge, to determine whether certain
defendants are persistent offenders subject to an extended term of
imprisonment, which is likely to extend jury deliberations.� In New Jersey,
petit jurors are paid $5 for each day of service.� If the petit juror serves
more than three days, the pay rate will increase to $40 per day beginning on
the fourth day.� Grand jurors are paid $5 for each day of service.� The judge�s
bench time as well as the workload of public defenders will also increase in
tandem with the length of the jury deliberations.� This may result in increased
administrative costs and judicial workload.� The OLS also notes that the bill's
requirement that a defendant who pleads guilty must knowingly and voluntarily
admit to the enhancing facts in order for the court to have the option to
impose an extended term may affect plea negotiations, potentially resulting in
fewer guilty pleas in cases where the State seeks a persistent offender
enhancement and a corresponding increase in the number of cases proceeding to
trial.�
����� The OLS does not have sufficient information or any
historical data on the number of offenders who were or are likely to be
prosecuted as persistent offenders to provide the fiscal impact of these
provisions.
����� Additionally, the OLS notes that per the bill, if the
defendant waives the right to a jury trial, the court would be required to find
beyond a reasonable doubt that the enhancing facts existed, which could also
result in additional bench time and administrative costs.� The OLS, however,
does not have any data to indicate the number of defendants waiving their right
to a jury trial.
����� The OLS notes that the county prosecutors may see an
increase in administrative costs and workload due to the provision requiring
that the grand jury indictment must now include the predicate enhancing facts
and that these must be presented to the grand jury.
Section:
Judiciary
Analyst:
Anuja Pande Joshi
Senior Research Analyst
Approved:
Thomas Koenig
Legislative Budget and Finance Officer
This legislative fiscal estimate has been produced by the
Office of Legislative Services due to the failure of the Executive Branch to
respond to our request for a fiscal note.
This fiscal estimate has been prepared pursuant to P.L.1980,
c.67 (C.52:13B-6 et seq.).