State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Respondent v. Walter Townsend, Defendant-Respondent and…

Summary

The Court held that the twenty‑year pre‑indictment delay did not violate the defendant’s due‑process rights and that the trial court’s admission of expert testimony on battered women and battered‑woman’s syndrome was proper; the failure to give a limiting instruction was deemed harmless error. Accordingly, the conviction was reinstated and the sentence remanded for correction. Justice Rivera‑Soto concurred in the due‑process holding but dissented from the evidentiary holding, arguing the expert testimony was inadmissible and the error reversible.