State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Danyell Fuqua

Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's denial of defendant Fuqua's motion for a judgment of acquittal, holding that a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) may be sustained by showing a child was exposed to a substantial risk of harm, without proof of actual harm. The Court also upheld prosecutorial discretion to charge under the endangering statute rather than Title 9 absent a showing of arbitrary or discriminatory intent. Justice Albin and Chief Justice Rabner each dissented, arguing that the statute requires actual harm and that the majority improperly conflates harm with risk of harm.