State v. Gaffey, 92 N.J. 374 (1983). Today is the 28th anniversary of this opinion, so it seems appropriate to revisit this case today. Though the “meritorious issue [was] whether under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice a criminal indictment could be dismissed with prejudice on grounds relating to the mental incompetence of the defendant,” Gaffey also discussed when a party may unilaterally withdraw an appeal. That issue did not appear to have been definitively resolved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey previously.
After appealing the trial court’s dismissal of Gaffey’s indictment to the Appellate Division, the State attempted to withdraw that appeal. The Appellate Division declined to allow withdrawal and affirmed the trial court’s order. The State petitioned for certification, and argued not only the merits of the dismissal of the indictment but whether it should have been allowed to withdraw its appeal.
In a unanimous opinion by Justice Handler, the Supreme Court found “that in the exercise of a sound discretion the Appellate Division properly denied the State leave to withdraw its appeal.” The Court noted that “the rules do not grant a party an unqualified right to dismiss or withdraw his appeal without the consent of his adversaries.” Appeals may be withdrawn only with the consent of the appellate court. Nonetheless, courts will ordinarily permit voluntary dismissal, unless there is prejudice to the respondent.
In Gaffey, there was prejudice to the defendant-respondent, since “withdrawal of the appeal would leave in place the dismissal of the indictment without resolution of its permanency or finality,” leaving Gaffey’s “rights unsettled … without definitive resolution of the meritorious issue.” Gaffey has since been cited and applied in at least one civil appeal. Strasenburgh v. Straubmuller, 146 N.J. 527, 537 (1996). Thus, on its 28th anniversary, Gaffey remains the leading authority in New Jersey on the issue of unilateral withdrawal of civil or criminal appeals.