STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH BUNDY, JR. (13-05-0273, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3222-14T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSEPH BUNDY, JR., a/k/a
JOSEPH BUNDY,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________________
Submitted May 9, 2017 – Decided June 28, 2017
Before Judges Fisher, Ostrer and Moynihan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Salem County, Indictment No. 13-
05-0273.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Margaret McLane, Assistant
Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the
brief).
John T. Lenahan, Salem County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Derrick Diaz,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
In this appeal, defendant argues, among other things, the
trial judge erred in imposing consecutive prison terms for his
reckless manslaughter and unlawful possession of a firearm
convictions. We agree the judge's Yarbough1 analysis does not
support consecutive terms and for that and other reasons, we remand
for resentencing.
Defendant was charged, in connection with a shooting, with:
first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a); second-degree unlawful
possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-
4(a); second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-5(b); second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-
1(b)(1); and third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-
1(b)(2). At the conclusion of a trial, a jury acquitted defendant
of murder, aggravated manslaughter, and possession of a weapon for
an unlawful purpose, but convicted him of the lesser-included
offense of second-degree reckless manslaughter, second-degree
unlawful possession of a weapon, second-degree aggravated assault,
and the lesser-included disorderly persons offense of simple
assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant was sentenced to an eight-
year prison term – with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier
– on the reckless manslaughter conviction to run consecutively to
an eight-year prison term with four years of parole ineligibility
1
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44 (1985), cert. denied,
475 U.S. 1014, 106 S. Ct. 1193, 89 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1986).
2 A-3222-14T2
on the unlawful possession of a firearm conviction. The trial
judge also ordered $5,720 in restitution.
Defendant appeals, arguing:
I. THE FAILURE TO REDACT DEFENDANT'S
INVOCATION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FROM HIS
RECORDED STATEMENT PLAYED FOR THE JURY, OR AT
LEAST PROVIDE LIMITING INSTRUCTION, DEPRIVED
DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF HIS CONVICTIONS (Not Raised
Below).
II. THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION UNFAIRLY
DENIGRATED DEFENSE COUNSEL AND SHIFTED THE
BURDEN OF PROOF, DEPRIVING DEFENDANT OF HIS
FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRING REVERSAL OF HIS
CONVICTION.
III. DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE AND
MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE THE COURT MISAPPLIED
YARBOUGH, FAILED TO ADDRESS MITIGATING
FACTORS, IMPROPERLY FOUND AGGRAVATING FACTOR
6, AND IMPOSED RESTITUTION WITHOUT EVALUATING
DEFENDANT'S ABILITY TO PAY.
Defendant also submitted a pro se letter brief in which he argues:
IV. THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY
PERMITTING A PHYSICIAN TO RENDER AN
INDEPENDENT OPINION AND TESTIFY AS TO THE
CAUSE OF DEATH OF THE VICTIM BASED ON AUTOPSY
PHOTOGRAPHS, AND THE NOTES OF ANOTHER
[2]
PHYSICIAN.
We address these arguments separately.
2
We have renumbered these arguments and reworded defendant's pro
se argument into a succinct point heading.
3 A-3222-14T2
I
Defendant first contends that his invocation of the right to
counsel should have been redacted from the recorded statement he
gave to police when played for the jury. He argues this
circumstance deprived him of a fair trial.
Because defendant raises this issue for the first time on
appeal, we apply the plain error standard and will not reverse
unless the error was "of such a nature as to have been clearly
capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. In the context
of a jury trial, relief will be afforded when the possibility of
an unjust result is "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to
whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not
have reached." State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971).
At trial, the State played for the jury the entirety of
defendant's recorded statement to police. At the statement's end,
defendant invoked the right to counsel:
A: Well you ain't going to believe me do you
want me to get a lawyer?
Q: Do you need one?
A: You aren't going to believe me.
A: I'm not going to risk my whole life
(indiscernible) to you, you all saying one
thing and got other people coming in saying
another. No. I'll call my dad and we'll get a
lawyer. Got to[o] much on the line
(indiscernible).
4 A-3222-14T2
Q: You said a mouthful there, you got too much
on the line to be taking any chances, you're
right so if you want a lawyer obviously,
that’s your choice.
A: (Indiscernible) fucking lawsuit
(indiscernible) at least I'm fuck
(indiscernible). You people won't believe me.
Defendant argues "[t]he court's failure to exclude [this] portion
of [defendant's] statement, or at a minimum provide a jury
instruction about the invocation, was clearly capable of producing
an unjust result . . . and deprived him of a fair trial."
Admission of testimony that defendant "desire[d] or
request[ed] . . . a lawyer is impermissible[,]" United States v.
Williams, 556 F.2d 65, 67 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 972,
97 S. Ct. 2936, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1070 (1977), and "trial courts should
endeavor to excise any reference to a criminal defendant's
invocation of his right to counsel," State v. Feaster, 156 N.J.
1, 75 (1998), because it might be viewed by jurors as suggestive
of guilt, State v. Tilghman, 345 N.J. Super. 571, 576-77 (App.
Div. 2001). This circumstance, however, does not always lead to a
finding of plain error. In Feaster, the Court found an invocation
of the right to counsel was erroneously heard by the jury but,
because of its "fleeting" nature, because the prosecutor did not
comment on it during his summation, because instructions were
given that barred the jury from drawing negative inferences as a
5 A-3222-14T2
result, and because defense counsel did not request further jury
instructions, the Court determined that the admission of the
invocation did not constitute plain error. Feaster, supra, 156
N.J. at 77. The facts of this case require the same result.
Defense counsel did not object to the jury hearing that
portion of the recorded statement. He did not ask that it be
stricken from the record once it was played. He did not seek
limiting or cautionary jury instructions. The prosecutor made no
mention of the invocation during closing statements. And
defendant's invocation of his right to counsel was heard at the
end of a statement that exceeded two hours during which defendant
professed his innocence multiple times and only when it seemed to
him the police didn't believe him. Just as was held in Feaster in
similar circumstances, we conclude the "jury was unlikely to have
drawn any unfavorable inferences against defendant that
jeopardized his fundamental right to a fair trial." Feaster, supra,
156 N.J. at 77.
II
Defendant claims the prosecutor's summation exceeded the
bounds of propriety by (a) denigrating defense counsel and (b)
improperly shifting the burden of proof to the defense. We find
insufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.
6 A-3222-14T2
2:11-3(e)(2). We add only the following brief comments on each
aspect of this argument.
A
Defendant argues that the prosecution denigrated defense
counsel by suggesting his goal was "to create confusion." This
comment was certainly objectionable but we conclude not "so
egregious that it deprived a defendant of a fair trial". State v.
Frost, 158 N.J. 76, 83 (1999).
To warrant reversal, a prosecutor's conduct must have
"substantially prejudiced defendant's fundamental right to have a
jury fairly evaluate the merits of his defense." State v.
Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515, 575 (1999), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
858, 122 S. Ct. 136, 151 L. Ed. 2d 89 (2001). "In determining
whether prosecutorial misconduct is prejudicial and denied
defendant a fair trial, we consider whether defense counsel made
a timely and proper objection, whether the remark was withdrawn
promptly, and whether the court ordered the remarks stricken from
the record and instructed the jury to disregard them." State v.
Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 322-23 (1987). If counsel does not object
at trial, "the remarks usually will not be deemed prejudicial."
Id. at 323.
7 A-3222-14T2
The prosecutor's comment that defense counsel was attempting
to create confusion was not "of such a nature as to have been
clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. The
record shows defense counsel did not object, and the trial judge
reminded the jurors in both his initial instructions and the final
charge that they are the sole judges of fact, including witness
credibility, and that summations are not evidence and should not
be treated as such.
B
The second claim of prosecutorial misconduct requires some
background information.
The prosecution offered into evidence surveillance footage
showing defendant entering an apartment complex in close proximity
to where the shooting occurred. In that footage, defendant appeared
to be wearing a white shirt. Later, defendant voluntarily
approached the police to clear his name. When then questioned
about his attire, defendant asserted he was wearing a black shirt
the night of the shooting. At trial, however, defendant testified
he was wearing a white shirt the night of the shooting. During his
closing statement, the prosecutor referred to defendant's
conflicting accounts and rhetorically asked, "[w]here's the white
shirt," arguably conveying that defendant failed to explain this
8 A-3222-14T2
inconvenient circumstance. Defendant argues that, in this way, the
prosecutor was able to "shift the burden of proof." Following the
prosecutor's argument on this point,3 defense counsel objected,
and the judge correctly struck from the record any reference that
the prosecution made to the shirt in his summation. The judge
further directed the jury "not [to] consider it for any purpose."
The judge reiterated that defendant "has no obligation or duty to
prove his innocence or offer any proof relating to his innocence",
and that the "State has the burden of proving [defendant's] guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt."4
The prosecutor's comment was not "of such a nature as to have
been clearly capable of producing an unjust result," R. 2:10-2,
because the comment was swiftly stricken and the jury thoroughly
instructed against considering it. This eliminated any potential
for prejudice.
3
The entire passage in question is as follows:
The black/white shirt thing. When he was first
interviewed, [defendant] didn't know we had a
video. [Defendant] said, "I was wearing a
black shirt." Why would he say that? Was there
something on that white shirt that he didn't
want the police to know? . . . I'll throw
something at you just like [defense counsel]
threw at you. Where's the white shirt?
4
Juries are presumed to understand and follow a trial judge's
instructions. State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 390 (1996); State v.
Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 271 (1969).
9 A-3222-14T2
III
Defendant appeals the sentence imposed.
Our review of a sentence is "relatively narrow" and governed
by an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J.
283, 297 (2010). Consequently, we are tasked only with determining,
"whether the correct sentencing guidelines [were] followed,"
whether "there is substantial evidence in the record to support
the findings of fact upon which the sentencing court based the
application of those guidelines," and "whether in applying those
guidelines to the relevant facts the trial court clearly erred by
reaching a conclusion that could not have reasonably been made
upon a weighing of the relevant factors." State v. Roth, 95 N.J.
334, 365-366 (1984).
As we have observed, defendant was sentenced to an eight-year
prison term – with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier –
on the reckless manslaughter conviction; that term was ordered to
run consecutively to an eight-year prison term subject to a four-
year period of parole ineligibility on the unlawful possession of
a firearm conviction. Defendant contends the judge erred: (a) by
imposing consecutive terms; (b) by failing to address mitigating
factors and erroneously finding aggravating factor six; and (c)
by ordering restitution without evaluating defendant's ability to
pay.
10 A-3222-14T2
A
Defendant argues that the judge misapplied Yarbough, which
provides a series of factors to consider when choosing between the
imposition of concurrent or consecutive sentences. 100 N.J. at
643-44. At sentencing, the judge analyzed the Yarbough factors
individually and concluded the sentence of unlawful possession of
a weapon should run consecutive to the sentence imposed for the
manslaughter offense by reasoning that:
The crimes and their objectives were
predominately independent of each other. The
crime of unlawful possession of a weapon, the
purpose of it is to possess a weapon without
being legally entitled to do so. The reckless
conduct towards [the victim] which resulted
in his death.
They involve separate acts . . . [and] were
at different times. The unlawful possession
of the weapon goes back to the nexus of the
time when [defendant] obtained the weapon
unlawfully from someone on the street, as
opposed to [the shooting that occurred later].
I recognize that they are sort of in the same
24-hour period, but at a later time when he
confronted [the victim] in the early hours of
the next morning.
There aren't multiple victims here because the
unlawful possession of a weapon is – it's
victimless in a sense that it – doesn’t
require [defendant] to do something to
someone, so I would say that that factor is
inapplicable.
And we're imposing sentences on two different
offenses. Our system requires that there be
11 A-3222-14T2
no free crimes; that the punishment should fit
the crime. There should be no double-counting.
I would suggest that there are none . . . in
what I am doing now.
In State v. Copling, 326 N.J. Super. 417, 440-42 (App. Div.
1999), cert. denied, 164 N.J. 189 (2000), we found erroneous the
imposition of consecutive sentences for murder, manslaughter and
unlawful possession of a weapon convictions, because "[t]he
objective and purpose" of the unlawful possession statute is
similar to that of the murder statute.
In Copling, we recognized that the objective and purpose of
the unlawful possession statute "is to protect others from being
killed by those who own weapons" and "[t]here is a strong
legislative policy in this State with respect to gun control,
designed to protect the public, which places restrictions on those
who may carry such weapons and is intended to prevent criminal and
other unfit elements from acquiring and possessing them." Ibid.(quoting State v. Wright, 155 N.J. Super. 549, 553 (App. Div.
1978)). We also recognized the "purpose of the murder statute is
obviously to protect the public and individuals from unlawful
killing." Ibid. Consequently, we concluded that the statutes were
intended to protect the same class of victims – in short, society
as a whole. So viewing the purposes of these statutes – a view
12 A-3222-14T2
that eliminated one of the Yarbough factors found by the trial
judge – we remanded in Copling for resentencing.
The facts here are similar. Defendant was convicted of
reckless manslaughter, a lesser-included offense of murder, and
unlawful possession of a weapon. The trial judge erred by
determining "the crimes and their objectives were predominantly
independent of each other," Yarbough, supra, 100 N.J. at 643-44,
a conclusion inconsistent with our holding in Copling. Because,
like Copling, only two of the five Yarbough factors applied here,
we remand for resentencing at which time the judge may not impose
consecutive prison terms.
B
At sentencing, defense counsel requested the judge's
consideration of "mitigating factors three, four, five, seven, and
eight."5 Despite this request, the trial judge made no mention of
5
These mitigating factors apply when:
(3) The defendant acted under a strong
provocation;
(4) There were substantial grounds tending to
excuse or justify the defendant's conduct,
though failing to establish a defense;
(5) The victim of the defendant's conduct
induced or facilitated its commission;
13 A-3222-14T2
them. Instead, the judge addressed and properly weighed
"aggravating factors three, six and nine," and he also properly
gave weight to "mitigating [factor] ten."6 After creating a record
on these factors – but without addressing mitigating factors three,
four, five, seven, and eight – the trial judge concluded the
"aggravating factors substantially outweigh the mitigating
factors."
On remand for resentencing, and in order "[t]o facilitate
meaningful appellate review," State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65
(2014), the judge should address the mitigating factors that were
urged by the defense but as to which the judge made no reference.
Blackmon, supra, 202 N.J. at 297. We offer no view about these
factors only that, once invoked, the judge was obligated to give
a rationale for his view of their applicability or lack thereof.
Without such an explanation, we cannot determine whether the judge
(7) The defendant has no history of prior
delinquency or criminal activity or has led a
law-abiding life for a substantial period of
time before the commission of the present
offense; [and]
(8) The defendant's conduct was the result of
circumstances unlikely to recur.
[N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(3)-(8)].
6
The trial judge concluded that "[t]he defendant is particularly
likely to respond affirmatively to probationary treatment,"
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1b(10).
14 A-3222-14T2
erred with respect to any mitigating factor that was not found or
applied.
C
Defendant argues the trial judge erred by ordering that
defendant pay $5,720 in restitution without first conducting an
ability-to-pay hearing. Defendant argues, and the State agrees,
that due process requires that such a hearing be conducted when
there is a good faith dispute about a defendant's ability to pay.
State v. Martinez, 392 N.J. Super. 307, 319-22 (App. Div. 2007);
State v. Jamiolkoski, 272 N.J. Super. 326, 329 (App. Div. 1994).
At the sentencing hearing on January 9, 2015, defendant agreed
to the judge's holding off on the issue of restitution until a
later date. On March 5, 2015, however, and without conducting a
hearing, the trial judge ordered restitution in the amount of
$5,720. Although the State agrees with defendant's position that
due process requires a hearing when there is a dispute about a
defendant's ability to pay, the State argues there was no dispute
about the amount. That may be true, but it does not address whether
defendant had the ability to pay that amount.
In resentencing defendant, the judge should conduct an
ability-to-pay hearing.
15 A-3222-14T2
IV
Defendant, in his pro se submission, raises another issue.
He argues the trial judge erred by permitting an expert to render
an independent opinion and to testify about the cause of death
through consideration of autopsy photographs and the notes of
another expert. We find insufficient merit to warrant discussion
in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add only the following
brief comments.
Since this issue is raised for the first time on appeal, we
apply the plain error standard, R. 2:10-2, which precludes reversal
unless the error "is of such a nature as to have been clearly
capable of producing an unjust result." Ibid.The State called Dr. Gerald Feigin, Salem County's medical
examiner, to testify about the victim's cause of death. The parties
stipulated Dr. Feigin was an expert in forensic pathology, but Dr.
Feigin did not conduct the autopsy; instead, he reviewed the
medical report of the pathologist who conducted the autopsy,
examined photographs of the autopsy, and considered the other
pathologist's notes. Dr. Feigin concluded that the victim died of
a "gunshot wound to the chest and that the bullet caused damage
16 A-3222-14T2
by passing through the heart and liver, causing massive bleeding."
He also concluded "the manner of death is homicide."7
Although a prosecutor's use at trial of a medical examiner
who did not perform the autopsy may in different circumstances
prove problematic, see State v. Bass, 224 N.J. 285, 291-92 (2016),
Dr. Feigin did not rely on the non-testifying expert's report or
conclusions; he gave his own opinion based on material of the type
normally considered by experts, and he reached his own conclusion
about the mechanics of death. In addition, no harm resulted because
the issue at trial was whether defendant shot the victim, not
whether the victim died of a gunshot wound.
We affirm defendant's convictions. We reverse defendant's
consecutive sentence and remand for an ability-to-pay hearing and
for resentencing in conformity with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
7
This last comment represented an improper legal opinion. But
there was no objection, and the propriety of this legal opinion
has not been raised here, so we need not consider whether the Dr.
Feigen's declaration that defendant was the victim of a "homicide"
was erroneous.
17 A-3222-14T2