In two unrelated cases involving 16-year-old boys accused of sexually assaulting juveniles, New Jersey family court judges rejected efforts to try them as adults.

In one case, a judge found the alleged sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl was not “especially heinous or cruel,” while the judge in the second matter noted that the defendant is an Eagle scout and “comes from a good family.”

In both cases, the state appellate court reversed the decisions and chastised the family court judges for how they handled the matters.

In a Middlesex County case, Superior Court Judge Marcia Silva denied a motion to waive a 16-year-old to adult court on charges that he sexually assaulted a 12-year-old in 2017.

The defendant, identified by the initials E.R.M., and the girl were “boyfriend and girlfriend,” according to the appellate ruling, and their families shared a house.

After smoking marijuana with friends, he allegedly assaulted the girl as she returned home from summer school.

He was wearing a condom when he pushed the girl into a bedroom and “penetrated her with force,” over her objections, according to the appellate ruling. The incident left her bleeding, documents note.

E.R.M, who allegedly spit in an officer’s face when he was arrested, claimed the encounter was consensual.

Prosecutors argued that E.R.M. knew what he was doing was wrong and said the fact he wore a condom demonstrated forethought, even though an expert evaluation determined the teen was “developmentally immature and had bipolar disorder.”

Silva, however, rejected the prosecution’s waiver motion as an abuse of discretion, noting that the juvenile court’s primary responsibility is “rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.”

In her ruling, she took issue with the waiver process in general, noted the increasing number of referral motions to adult court in Middlesex County in recent years, following an amendment to the waiver statute, and said she saw no reason why the prosecution would have rejected the teen’s explanation that the 12-year-old consented to sex with E.R.M.

Silva went on to say that, even if the girl’s claim was true, “the offense is not an especially heinous or cruel offense beyond the elements of the crimes that the waiver statute intends to target.”

She also didn’t find it surprising that the teen would carry a condom, disagreeing with the prosecution view that this showed calculation on his part.

The Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office appealed Silva’s ruling and the appellate court took her to task on several points, agreeing with the prosecution that E.R.M. was culpable even if the girl had consented, since she was 12 and he was 16.

“Furthermore, the judge quoted statistics regarding waiver applications in that county, which were an inappropriate justification for her decision,” they wrote.

Instead, the judge should have focused on the juvenile charged in this case and the related allegations.

“The point of a waiver hearing is not to provide an opportunity for a judge to school the state as to how to view the evidence, but merely to decide whether or not the state’s conclusions about the charges were an abuse of discretion,” the appellate judges wrote.

“The judge not only failed to apply the abuse of discretion standard, she mistakenly applied her judgment in doing so, including minimization of the harm wrought on a twelve-year-old child by E.R.M., assuming her claims are true.”

In the second case, Superior Court Judge James Troiano rejected a Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office bid to waive a 16-year-old, identified as G.M.C., to adult court for an alleged sexual assault at a party in 2017.

About 30 youths had gathered in a basement for a pajama-themed party in which at least some attendees were drinking. In a secluded area of the basement, G.M.C. allegedly assaulted a drunk 16-year-old girl and recorded the incident on his cellphone, according to the appellate ruling.

He allegedly shared the video with friends and sent a text stating “When your first time having sex was rape.”

In seeking a waiver to adult court, prosecutors said G.M.C.’s actions were “sophisticated and predatory,” arguing that he later lied to the girl about the existence of the video while at the same time sharing it with others.

“Filming a cellphone video while committing the assault was a deliberate act of debasement,” prosecutors said.

Troiano, however, said that the defendant “comes from a good family who put him in an excellent school where he was doing extremely well” and noted that he is an Eagle scout.

The judge also expressed concern over whether the prosecution had explained to the girl and her family “the devastating effect a waiver would have on G.M.C.’s life.”

In addition, he questioned the prosecution’s claim that the defendant’s actions were predatory and opined, “I think it’s an issue here, whether or not this young lady was intoxicated to the point that she didn’t understand what was going on.”

In reversing Troiano’s decision, appellate court judges found that he had decided the case for himself, rather than weighing the merits of the waiver application.

“In denying waiver, the trial court minutely considered the circumstances of the offense, made an independent assessment of the juvenile’s culpability, and considered G.M.C’s prior good character … His consideration of these elements, however, sounded as if he had conducted a bench trial on the charges rather than neutrally reviewed the state’s application.”

Following the appellate court reversals, Silva and Troiano signed orders last week waiving the respective defendants to adult court, a court official confirmed.

Matt Gray may be reached at mgray@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @MattGraySJT. Find NJ.com on Facebook. Have a tip? Tell us: nj.com/tips.

Get the latest updates right in your inbox. Subscribe to NJ.com’s newsletters.