In this juvenile delinquency case, neither the State nor defendant sought oral argument in the Appellate Division. The State, the respondent in that court, explained that it believed the issues raised by defendant on appeal of the Family Part’s finding of delinquency by endangering the welfare of a child were governed by settled law.However, the Appellate Division sua sponte directed the parties to file supplemental briefs on a new issue: ““whether the lack of a finding of penetration or coercion undermines the delinquency finding of endangering the welfare of a child, in light of the four-year age difference required for a delinquency finding of sexual assault” under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b). The State then requested oral argument, and defendant did not oppose that, but the Appellate Division denied that request.

Div. 2017), the Appellate Division ruled that there was no statutory authorization for the State to appeal. The Supreme Court granted the State’s application for review.Finally, the question presented in State v.ATC, the other criminal case, is “In this facial challenge to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(D), is the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the separation of powers doctrine? Did the State– through the sentencing record and the Attorney General guidelines– sufficiently explain its use of discretion to permit effective judicial review as required in State v. Vasquez, 129 N.J. 189 (1992), such that A.T.C.’s sentence did not violate the separation of powers doctrine?