In 1989, New Jersey’s  Supreme Court concluded that a plea agreement that gave the government the opportunity to withdraw from a plea arrangement, if the sentencing judge imposed a period of incarceration less than the one subject of the plea agreement. Recently, the court reaffirmed the general proposition subject of that ruling in a different setting.

In the case before the Court, defendant was charged with the first-degree murder of her husband. The government's contention was that the murder was the product of defendant’s fear that the husband would learn about her financial problems. Her defense was that she was physically and verbally abused by the husband. The case ultimately resulted in a plea where defendant pled to aggravated manslaughter with a 30 year term of imprisonment. The agreement also required that defendant stipulate that the aggravating factors exceeded the mitigating factors; that she would not argue for a more lenient sentence on sentencing day; and, that she would not appeal her conviction. At the time of sentencing, and without the objection of defendant’s counsel the government was able to play a montage of defendant's life which showed a photograph of his tombstone. The government also elicited an impact statement from the husband’s co-worker.

After sentencing, defendant filed a application for post conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The application was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the Appellate Division.  The decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. In rendering its decision, the Court looked to the 1989 ruling that significantly impeded restrictions on plea negotiations and also concluded that defendant's trial attorney improperly failed to object to the two categories of evidence produced at sentencing and that he also failed to develop the prospect that defendant may have been suffering from Battered Women Syndrome.