The New Jersey Supreme Court has affirmed vacatur of a local politician's criminal conviction for disclosing information about an opponent's child abuse allegations to an ally.

In a unanimous ruling released May 24, the court said the language of the statute that criminalizes the unauthorized release or encouraging the release of confidential child abuse information is ambiguous in that it is unclear as to whether the statute applies to anyone or only to employees of the Division of Child Protection and Permanency.

“Given that the statutory language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, and that extrinsic sources do not resolve that dispute, we find an ambiguity 'cannot inure to the benefit of the state,'” the court said, quoting its 1994 ruling in State v. Alexander.

According to the decision, the case stems from the 2012 election for the mayor of the city of Salem. The defendant, Isaac Young, was executive director of the city's housing authority, and his friend and political ally—Robert Davis, the incumbent mayor—was seeking re-election. Davis eventually was defeated by then-councilman Charles Washington.

At some point, the ruling said, Young received a confidential report detailing allegations of child abuse against Washington, which were later found to be unsubstantiated, the court said. He gave the documents to police Sgt. Leon Daniels for distribution for political purposes, according to the court.

Eventually, Washington discovered that the documents were being circulated. The city police chief referred the matter to the Salem County Prosecutor's Office, which launched an investigation and charged Young with disseminating confidential child abuse records, a fourth-degree crime; and third- and fourth-degree false swearing. Young eventually was convicted of the three charges and sentenced to probation, and lost his job as a result of the conviction, according to the court.

An appeals court affirmed the two convictions for false swearing, but overturned the conviction for unlawful dissemination of confidential child abuse documents.

The state appealed, arguing that the statute was meant to be interpreted broadly to include anyone.

The court, in a per curiam decision, disagreed: “It is in the domain of the Legislature to determine whether an individual who is unauthorized to view records deemed confidential under the statute, but who nonetheless knowingly gains access to such confidential records and disseminates them to others, is subject to … criminal prosecution.

“If the Legislature concludes that the state's position represents the better public policy, it has the power” to amend the statute, the court said.

Leland Moore, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office, which handled the state's appeal, said officials there had no comment

Young's attorney, Justin Loughry, applauded the ruling.

“I'm not sure why the court accepted the state's appeal, but they correctly determined that the statute is ambiguous as written,” said Loughry, of Loughry & Lindsay in Camden.