STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. O.L. (12-08-1393, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2017 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 only binding 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-1598-14T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
O.L.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________
Submitted September 28, 2016 – Decided September 12, 2017
Before Judges Simonelli and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County,
Indictment No. 12-08-1393.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Alan I. Smith, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).
Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Mary R.
Juliano, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from his judgment of conviction stemming
from engaging in sexual conduct with his girlfriend's fourteen-
year-old sister, C.H. He was charged in an indictment with second-
degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(4) (count one);1
second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1) (count two);
and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A.
2C:24-4(a) (count three). A jury trial was conducted from May 6
through 15, 2014, during which, with defendant's consent, count
one was amended to fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A.
2C:14-3(b). The jury found defendant not guilty on counts one and
two, but guilty on count three. He was sentenced to a five-year
term of imprisonment and a special sentence of parole supervision
for life, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. All applicable fines and penalties
were imposed.
On appeal, defendant argues:
POINT I - THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING ADMITTING
C.H.'S STATEMENT TO DETECTIVE OTLOWSKI AND
C.H.'S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE AS
PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS WAS REVERSIBLE
ERROR.
POINT II - THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING DENYING
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY WAS
REVERSIBLE ERROR BECAUSE DEFENDANT
ESTABLISHED A LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS
1
Count one of the indictment erroneously indicated that the
offense charged was second-degree sexual assault contrary to
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b). Prior to trial, the indictment was amended
pursuant to Rule 3:7-4 to change the statutory citation to N.J.S.A.
2C:14-2(c)(4) to correspond with the language in the indictment.
2 A-1598-14T1
TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF C.H.'S MEDICAL,
PSYCHOLOGICAL, DCPP,2 AND SCHOOL RECORDS.
POINT III – DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITTAL NOTWITHSTANDING THE JURY VERDICT
ON COUNT THREE, OR ALTERNATIVELY FOR A NEW
TRIAL ON COUNT THREE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED
BECAUSE THERE EXISTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
FIND DEFENDANT GUILTY OF ENDANGERING, AND
BECAUSE THE VERDICT INCONSISTENCY THAT
RESULTED FROM THE TRIAL COURT'S FAULTY JURY
INSTRUCTION ON COUNT THREE CONSTITUTED A
MANIFEST INJUSTICE UNDER THE LAW.
POINT IV - THE FIVE (5) YEAR BASE TERM IMPOSED
ON DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE
WELFARE OF A CHILD ON COUNT THREE WAS
MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.
We reject these arguments and affirm.
I.
We discern the following facts from the record. At trial,
C.H. testified that defendant, who was eleven years older, engaged
in sexual conduct with her on multiple occasions from July 1, 2011
through April 21, 2012. Initially, the conduct consisted of mutual
flirting, texting and exchanging nude photos of each other at
defendant's request. C.H. admitted having a crush on defendant,
which angered her older sister, S.Q. On one occasion, when C.H.
and her younger sister went to visit S.Q., who was then living
with defendant in an apartment, defendant touched C.H.'s thigh and
vagina over her clothing and told C.H. that he "wanted to f**k"
2
Referring to the Division of Child Protection and Permanency.
3 A-1598-14T1
her. S.Q. was not home at the time and defendant stopped when
C.H.'s younger sister walked into the room.
The next incident occurred at C.H.'s house. Defendant and
C.H. went out to the backyard where defendant apologized to C.H.
while they were sitting on the grass. Thereafter, defendant
grabbed C.H., told her again that he "wanted to f**k" her, got on
top of her, exposed his penis and rubbed it "near [her] vagina."
Defendant eventually stopped at C.H.'s request and they went back
inside the house. On other occasions, defendant repeatedly touched
C.H. inappropriately while they were at her house and continued
telling her that he "wanted to f**k" her. C.H. consistently told
him "no" because "he was with [her] older sister." However, C.H.
did not tell anyone about the incidents because she did not want
defendant "to get in trouble."
On April 21, 2012, while the family was celebrating C.H.'s
younger sister's first communion at their home, C.H.'s mother
asked C.H. to get chairs from the basement. Defendant went with
C.H. to assist her. After they finished and were walking up the
basement stairs, defendant "grabbed" C.H. from behind and "started
to kiss" her "with his tongue in [her] mouth." Defendant also
thrust his hand into the leg of C.H.'s shorts and penetrated her
vagina with his fingers.
4 A-1598-14T1
While they were on the stairs, C.H.'s mother called out "who's
there" from the bottom of the staircase. Although it was dark,
C.H.'s mother could tell that someone was present. At that point,
C.H. fled upstairs to her bedroom with her mother following her.
Based on C.H.'s reaction and their location on the stairs, C.H.'s
mother believed that something sexual had occurred between C.H.
and defendant. In the bedroom, C.H.'s mother screamed "[h]ow
could you do that to your sister," who was then pregnant with
defendant's child. C.H. cried and never responded to her mother.
Eventually, C.H. and her mother rejoined the party. C.H.'s mother
did not pursue it at that point because she did not want to ruin
the celebration.
Two days later, on April 23, 2012, in S.Q.'s presence, C.H.'s
parents confronted C.H. about what had transpired at the party.
C.H. cried and told them that defendant was kissing her, but did
not tell them about the other incidents because she was afraid
that her parents would be angry with her. When C.H. explained
that she was not the initiator, that defendant had been "chasing
after her[,]" and that it had been going on for some time, C.H.'s
parents asked if she wanted to go to the police and she agreed.
Later that day, accompanied by her parents, C.H. gave a signed
written statement to Detective Otlowski disclosing everything that
had occurred between her and defendant. Although Detective
5 A-1598-14T1
Otlowski examined C.H.'s cell phone for any of the photographs
referenced in her statement, there were no photos on her phone.
C.H. also refused Detective Otlowski's offer to go to the hospital,
stating that she was not injured.
After C.H. reported the incidents to the police, her
relationship with her sister changed for the worst and it made
C.H. "sad." Her sister believed defendant, who had told her that
C.H. was the one who was "offering herself to him." As a result,
on June 21, 2012, C.H. and her parents went to defense counsel's
office and signed waivers of prosecution. Although C.H. and her
parents were asked to sign a document admitting that the
allegations were false, they refused and instead signed a document
they believed meant that they "didn't want to go to court" and
they wanted "to drop the charges." C.H. testified that she signed
the document because she felt badly about "what [she was] doing
to [her] sister" and "want[ed] [defendant and her sister] to be
together" with their newborn baby.
However, on July 27, 2012, C.H. testified before the grand
jury consistent with her signed statement to Detective Otlowski.
When her sister later contacted her and asked her to write a letter
recanting her allegations, C.H. agreed. On December 13, 2013,
accompanied by her sister, C.H. again went to defense counsel's
office and wrote exactly what her sister told her to write in a
6 A-1598-14T1
signed statement recanting the allegations. Her sister told her
not to tell her parents about the recantation statement in case
they tried to stop her. In the statement, C.H. wrote: "I, [C.H.],
want to be clear that my testimony against [defendant] [was] false.
I am sorry for the time wasted in this case. I do not want to say
my reasons but I lied and I wish to say no more." After submitting
the statement, defense counsel and an investigator interviewed
C.H.; she reiterated to them that defendant did not touch her
inappropriately.
Before testifying at the trial, C.H. met with members of the
Prosecutor's Office on March 21, April 21, and April 23, 2014. At
the trial, C.H. testified consistent with her statement to
Detective Otlowski and her grand jury testimony, but admitted that
she did not want to testify because of her sister and her sister's
child. When confronted with her waiver of prosecution and
recantation statement, C.H. explained that she felt she had to
recant her account for her sister because she "owed her." C.H.'s
statement to Detective Otlowski, her grand jury testimony, the
waiver of prosecution, and her recantation statement were all
admitted into evidence at the trial.
After the State rested, defendant moved for a judgment of
acquittal pursuant to Rule 3:18-1, which was denied. Following
the jury verdict, defendant moved for a judgment notwithstanding
7 A-1598-14T1
the verdict (JNOV) or a new trial, both of which were denied on
July 11, 2014. On September 26, 2014, defendant was sentenced 3
and this appeal followed.
II.
In Point I of his merits brief, defendant argues that it was
reversible error for the trial court to admit the victim's signed
statement to Detective Otlowski and her grand jury testimony. We
disagree.
"[I]n reviewing a trial court's evidential ruling, an
appellate court is limited to examining the decision for abuse of
discretion." State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368, 385 (2015)
(citation omitted). Under that standard, "[c]onsiderable latitude
is afforded a trial court in determining whether to admit
evidence," and "an appellate court should not substitute its own
judgment for that of the trial court, unless the trial court's
ruling was so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice
resulted." Id. at 385-86 (citations omitted).
Here, defense counsel objected to the admission of the
evidence and argued that the probative value was substantially
outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice. The court overruled
3
At the sentencing hearing, defendant pled guilty to violating
his probation on an unrelated charge. The trial court terminated
his probation without improvement. Defendant does not appeal the
termination.
8 A-1598-14T1
defense counsel's objection and admitted C.H.'s signed statement
to Detective Otlowski and her grand jury testimony to rebut the
accusation of recent fabrication. Relying on State v. Johnson,
235 N.J. Super. 547, 555 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 118 N.J. 214
(1989), the court determined that the signed statement and the
grand jury testimony both met the requirements of N.J.R.E.
803(a)(2). The court also found that "the probative value
outweigh[ed] whatever prejudice there might be."
N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2) provides:
A statement previously made by a person who
is a witness at a trial or hearing [is not
excluded by the hearsay rule], provided it
would have been admissible if made by the
declarant while testifying and the statement
. . . is consistent with the witness'
testimony and is offered to rebut an express
or implied charge against the witness of
recent fabrication or improper influence or
motive[.]
"A 'charge' of recent fabrication can be effected through
implication by the cross-examiner as well as by direct accusation
of the witness. In fact[,] that is the usual way in which the
charge is made." Johnson, supra, 235 N.J. Super. at 555 (citation
omitted).
[I]t is the impression the cross-examiner
makes upon the jury in the heat of the trial
rather than what an appellate court would
discern from a coldly analytical study of the
testimony which must control review of the
9 A-1598-14T1
somewhat discretionary exercise of judgment
made by the trial judge in the matter.
[Id. at 555-56 (quoting State v. King, 115
N.J. Super. 140, 146-47 (App. Div.), certif.
denied, 59 N.J. 268 (1971)).]
Defendant acknowledges that defense counsel "sought to
impeach C.H.'s credibility during cross-examination when [C.H.]
was confronted with her written recantation made at [defense]
counsel's office." Nonetheless, defendant argues that "since
C.H.'s direct testimony was consistent with her statement given
to Detective Otlowski and with her grand jury testimony, there was
no express or implied charge of a recent fabrication to trigger
admission of her statement and grand jury testimony into evidence
as prior consistent statements." Defendant asserts that the
court's ruling was therefore erroneous because "a prior consistent
statement may not be offered solely to support a witness'
credibility."
"An attack on a party's credibility through prior
inconsistent statements does not necessarily give [the party] the
right to use a prior consistent statement to buttress the party's
credibility." Palmisano v. Pear, 306 N.J. Super. 395, 403 (App.
Div. 1997). Here, however, defense counsel admittedly sought to
impeach C.H.'s credibility during cross-examination with her
recantation statement to imply that C.H.'s recantation was
10 A-1598-14T1
accurate and that she recently fabricated a different version of
events when testifying, or in preparation for testifying, at trial.
See Johnson, supra, 235 N.J. Super. at 555 (admitting a witness's
prior statement after "defense counsel highlighted several
inconsistencies in details between the prior statement and [the
witness's] trial testimony, thus creating the inference that [he]
had not been truthful at trial").
Such fabrication during trial or in preparation for trial is
certainly "recent" in common parlance. See King, supra, 115 N.J.
Super. at 146 (admitting a witness's statement to police and grand
jury testimony where defense counsel alluded to the witness's
threat a week before trial that she would lie at the trial).
Moreover, here, C.H.'s prior consistent statement to police and
grand jury testimony occurred prior to trial, and prior to trial
preparation. "Where the prior consistent statement was made before
the motive to fabricate arose, the fabrication is 'recent' enough
under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2)." State v. Moorer, 448 N.J. Super. 94,
110 (App. Div. 2016).
"The scope of the exception encompasses prior consistent
statements made by the witness before the alleged 'improper
influence or motive' to demonstrate that the witness did not change
his or her story." Neno v. Clinton, 167 N.J. 573, 580 (2001).
Thus, in Moorer, supra, we held that "fabrication is 'recent' if
11 A-1598-14T1
it post-dates a prior consistent statement." 448 N.J. Super. at
110.
In that situation, the prior consistent
statement has clear probative value:
Impeachment by charging that the testimony is
a recent fabrication or results from an
improper influence or motive is, as a general
matter, capable of direct and forceful
refutation through introduction of out-of-
court consistent statements that predate the
alleged fabrication, influence, or motive. A
consistent statement that predates the motive
is a square rebuttal of the charge that the
testimony was contrived as a consequence of
that motive.
[Id. at 111 (quoting Tome v. U.S., 513 U.S.
150, 158, 115 S. Ct. 696, 701, 130 L. Ed. 2d
574, 582-83 (1995)).]
Accordingly, it was not an abuse of discretion to admit C.H.'s
consistent statement to police and grand jury testimony to help
refute the allegation of recent fabrication. Moreover, our Supreme
Court has declined to adopt as a rigid admissibility requirement
that the previous statement was made prior to the motive or
influence to lie. State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30, 81 (1997), cert.
denied sub nom., Chew v. New Jersey, 528 U.S. 1052, 120 S. Ct.
593, 145 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1999). Recognizing that "many things were
happening as the different stories unfolded[,]" and that "[t]here
were shades of difference between the witnesses' motivations at
different times[,]" the Court upheld the admission of consistent
12 A-1598-14T1
statements made after some motive to fabricate arose, but before
other motives to fabricate arose. Id. at 80.
Likewise, in State v. Muhammad, 359 N.J. Super. 361, 388-89
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 36 (2003), we determined
that a witness' prior consistent statement was properly admitted,
reasoning:
As in Chew much was happening at the various
times [the witness] made statements and
testified, and his motivations likely differed
at different times. The defense used the
taped statement to impeach [the witness] by
pointing out inconsistencies with his prior
statements and his trial testimony. The
statement was not irrelevant to rebut the
charge that [the witness'] testimony was the
product of an improper influence or motive to
lie. As in Chew, it related to differing
motives to fabricate and was used for
rehabilitative purposes.
[Id. at 389 (citation omitted).]
Here too, much was happening at the various times C.H. made
statements and testified and her motivation fluctuated at
different times. Her prior consistent statements were therefore
relevant to also rebut the charge that her testimony was the
product of an improper influence or motive to lie and was properly
admitted for rehabilitative purposes. Further, the "probative
value" of the evidence was not "substantially outweighed by the
risk of . . . undue prejudice" to mandate exclusion. N.J.R.E.
403. "[A] trial court's weighing of probative value against
13 A-1598-14T1
prejudicial effect 'must stand unless it can be shown that the
trial court palpably abused its discretion, that is, that its
finding was so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice
resulted.'" State v. Cole, ____ N.J. ____, ____ (2017), slip op.
at 28 (quoting State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 106 (1982)). We
discern no abuse of discretion in the court's weighing of the
probative value against the prejudicial effect and admitting
C.H.'s statement to Detective Otlowski and grand jury testimony.
III.
In Point II, defendant argues that the court erred in denying
his motion for the disclosure of the victim's medical,
psychological, school and records from the Division of Child
Protection and Permanency (DCPP) because "C.H.'s credibility was
a critical issue" and "there existed an inference that C.H. had
made a prior similar accusation against her father." Pre-trial,
defendant moved for disclosure of the records. To establish the
basis for the request, defendant relied on the following portion
of a recorded jailhouse phone conversation between defendant and
S.Q. referenced in a certification submitted by defense counsel:
[DEFENDANT]: Baby, do you remember that
. . . I said I was not going to say anything
about what he did . . .
[S.Q.]: Uh hum.
[DEFENDANT]: Your father with your sister?
14 A-1598-14T1
[S.Q.]: Uh hum.
[DEFENDANT]: I'm not going to say anything.
Ok?
[S.Q.]: Ok! Ok baby.
[DEFENDANT]: Because it's your father and I
don’t want anything to happen to him, but on
the same token, I don’t want to be here.
In denying the motion, the court explained:
This is not the situation in which
there's a statement by the victim herself that
anything happened untoward between the victim
and her father. . . . This is the defendant
saying that. And so, there's absolutely no
factual basis that's been provided . . . that
any of these records exist for any reason,
anything related to the allegations in this
case. . . .
[M]edical records are covered by a
statutory privilege . . . . The same is true
by statute and . . . evidential rules for the
psychological privilege. The school records
are covered by statute, as are the . . . DCPP
records.
[U]nless there's a compelling need shown
there's not even an in camera review. There's
no indication that the victim ever reported
any of this to a school official that would
give rise to a search for anything in the
school record. There's no indication in any
of the discovery that the . . . victim, as a
result of these incidents, has sought or is
seeking, or has sought at any time,
psychological treatment.
. . . .
15 A-1598-14T1
And more importantly, when it comes to
the medical, . . . the victim refused medical
treatment so, there are no records.
So, it is not appropriate to have the
attorney file a statement saying that the
victim said that something happened between
the victim and her father, and therefore, it
must be false. It was the defendant who was
saying that, not the victim, nor anyone else.
The defendant said that, it's clearly shown
on tape.
It's not the basis to engage in a
wholesale fishing expedition for records which
apparently, on their face, do not exist.
"Appellate review of a trial court's discovery order is
governed by the abuse of discretion standard." State in Interest
of A.B., 219 N.J. 542, 554 (2014) (citation omitted). "Thus, an
appellate court should generally defer to a trial court's
resolution of a discovery matter, provided its determination is
not so wide of the mark or is not 'based on a mistaken understanding
of the applicable law.'" Ibid. (quoting Pomerantz Paper Corp. v.
New Cmty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344, 371 (2011)). However, "[i]n
construing the meaning of a statute, court rule, or case law, 'our
review is de novo,'" and we owe no deference to the trial court's
legal conclusions. Id. at 554-55.
"[T]he Confrontation Clause does not require the disclosure
of any and all information that might be useful to a defendant."
State v. Van Dyke, 361 N.J. Super. 403, 412 (App. Div.), certif.
16 A-1598-14T1
denied, 178 N.J. 35 (2003). Information that is confidential or
subject to a privilege requires courts to balance the defendant's
right to confrontation against an individual's right to privacy.
Although the standards for piercing various privileges and
overcoming confidentiality are worded differently, they share the
requirement that the applicant "must advance 'some factual
predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will
bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely
a desperate grasping at a straw.'" State v. Harris, 316 N.J.
Super. 384, 398 (App. Div. 1998) (citation omitted). See also
Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 306-07 (1997) (holding that
courts should not order disclosure of psychological records even
for an in camera review absent showing of a legitimate need for
the evidence, relevance and materiality to the issue before the
court, and unavailability of the information from any less
intrusive source); Kinsella v. NYT Television, 382 N.J. Super.
102, 111 (App. Div. 2005) (holding disclosure of privileged medical
records required only upon "'compelling' showing of a
particularized need for the information"); State v. Krivacska, 341
N.J. Super. 1, 35 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 206 (2001),
cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1012, 122 S. Ct. 1594, 152 L. Ed. 2d 510
(2002) (finding that relevant school records should only be
disclosed to a defendant upon a showing of particularized need);
17 A-1598-14T1
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. N.S., 412 N.J. Super. 593,
637 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 204 N.J. 38 (2010) (holding
release of DCPP records may be made only upon demonstration that
disclosure is necessary for determination of an issue before the
court).
Here, we are satisfied that the court correctly determined
that defendant failed to provide the required factual predicate
or showing of a particularized need to justify disclosure of the
records even for an in camera review. Indeed, given defendant's
inability to show that such records even existed, his factual
predicate was no more than "a desperate grasping at a straw." Van
Dyke, supra, 361 N.J. Super. at 412 (quoting Harris, supra, 316
N.J. Super. at 398).
IV.
In Point III, defendant argues that the court erred in denying
his motion for JNOV or a new trial because "the inconsistency in
the jury's guilty verdict constitutes a manifest injustice under
the law" and "represents [the jury's] failure to rationally apply
the reasonable doubt standard[.]" Defendant also asserts that a
"flawed jury instruction . . . could have erroneously led the jury
to find defendant guilty." Specifically, defendant asserts that
the jury charge "erroneously instructed the jury that defendant
is guilty of endangering the welfare of a minor if he knew that
18 A-1598-14T1
his conduct could impair or [debauch] the morals of C.H." We
reject defendant's contentions.
In a post-trial motion, defendant moved for JNOV or a new
trial. The judge denied the motion, explaining that:
[A] new trial is not the proper remedy because
there is no clear and convincing evidence that
the verdict was the result of mistake,
partiality, prejudice, or passion. There was
no obvious juror error here. Based on the
evidence and testimony, the jury could
reasonably find defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt for the crime of endangering
the welfare of a child. There was evidence
that [C.H.] was a child of 14 years old when
this incident occurred; that defendant engaged
in sexual conduct by exchanging text messages
and Facebook messages with [C.H.], including
messages asking her to send naked pictures of
herself, after sending her naked pictures of
himself, as well as telling [C.H.] repeatedly
he wanted to "[f**k] her;" and that defendant
knew this conduct would impair or debauch the
morals of [C.H.]. Defendant's conduct of
repeatedly sending and receiving sexual
messages, including naked picture messages and
suggesting that she participate in sexual
intercourse with him constitutes sexual
conduct.
The court also rejected defendant's argument that the
inconsistent verdicts justified granting a new trial, noting that
"legally it is of no consequence that the jury acquitted the
defendant of crimes which may have been in part an element of the
crime for which the defendant was convicted." The court also
determined that the single "typographical error" in the written
19 A-1598-14T1
jury charge did not mandate overturning the guilty verdict or
granting defendant a new trial.
The standard to be applied by a trial judge in deciding a
motion for an acquittal under Rule 3:18-2 after the jury has been
discharged is the same as that which applies when a motion for
acquittal is made before the case is submitted to the jury under
Rule 3:18-1.
On a motion for judgment of acquittal, the
governing test is: whether the evidence viewed
in its entirety, and giving the State the
benefit of all of its favorable testimony and
all of the favorable inferences which can
reasonably be drawn therefrom, is such that a
jury could properly find beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant was guilty of the
crime charged.
[State v. D.A., 191 N.J. 158, 163 (2007)
(citing State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 458-59
(1967)).]
We have stated that "the trial judge is not concerned with
the worth, nature[,] or extent (beyond a scintilla) of the
evidence, but only with its existence, viewed most favorably to
the State." State v. DeRoxtro, 327 N.J. Super. 212, 224 (App.
Div. 2000) (citation omitted). Our review of a trial court's
denial of a motion for acquittal is "limited and deferential[,]"
and is governed by the same standard as the trial court. State
v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 620 (2004).
20 A-1598-14T1
In considering whether a guilty verdict was against the weight
of the evidence produced at trial under Rule 3:20-1, "our task is
to decide whether 'it clearly appears that there was a miscarriage
of justice under the law.'" State v. Smith, 262 N.J. Super. 487,
512 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 134 N.J. 476 (1993) (quoting R.
2:10-1). "We must sift through the evidence 'to determine whether
any trier of fact could rationally have found beyond a reasonable
doubt that the essential elements of the crime were present.'"
Ibid. (quoting State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 96 (1982)). Our
"objective is not to second-guess the jury but to correct [an]
injustice that would result from an obvious jury error." State
v. Saunders, 302 N.J. Super. 509, 524 (App. Div.), certif. denied,
151 N.J. 470 (1997). We do not evaluate the evidence and determine
anew how we might have decided the issues.
Applying these standards, we conclude that the State
presented sufficient proofs to establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that defendant was guilty of third-degree endangering the welfare
of a child. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1), "[a]ny person
. . . who engages in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch
the morals of [a] child is guilty of a crime[.]" While the term
"sexual conduct" is not defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4, it is well-
recognized that the statute does not require direct sexual contact.
See State v. Hackett, 323 N.J. Super. 460, 472 (App. Div. 1999)
21 A-1598-14T1
(holding that "'sexual conduct' includes showing nude explicit
photographs to children"), aff'd as modified, 166 N.J. 66 (2001).
Based on the totality of the circumstances, mere sexual
conversations or encouragement of sexual conduct may be sufficient
for a jury's finding of "sexual conduct." See State v. McInerney,
428 N.J. Super. 432, 438, 450 (App. Div. 2012), certif. denied,
214 N.J. 175 (2013) (holding that defendant's encouragement of
sexual conduct was sufficient to satisfy the element); see also
State v. Maxwell, 361 N.J. Super. 502, 517-18 (Law Div. 2001)
(recognizing that "sexually explicit conversation" may "rise[] to
the level of 'sexual conduct'"), aff'd o.b., 361 N.J. Super. 401
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 34 (2003).
Based on the circumstances of the present case, we agree with
the judge that defendant's conduct towards C.H. constituted
"sexual conduct" as contemplated by the child-endangerment statute
and was sufficient to support a conviction. Giving the State the
benefit of all favorable inferences from the testimony it
presented, we are satisfied that the verdict was not a miscarriage
of justice, was supported by sufficient credible evidence in the
record, and the judge properly denied defendant's motion for a
judgment of acquittal or for a new trial.
This brings us to defendant's argument regarding inconsistent
verdicts. Assuming, for purposes of our analysis, that there was
22 A-1598-14T1
an inconsistency between the verdicts, inconsistent verdicts are
permissible, and "[w]e do not speculate why a jury acquits." State
v. Banko, 182 N.J. 44, 54 (2004). An inconsistent verdict may be
the product of jury nullification, mistake, compromise, or lenity,
and so, is not questioned. Id. at 54-55. Such verdicts will be
upheld so long as there is sufficient evidence to support the
convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Ibid. We note, however,
that while we need not resolve or explain away inconsistencies in
a verdict, we find no inconsistency in this verdict. Because the
different counts corresponded to different conduct, it is highly
likely that the verdict reflected the jury's acceptance of C.H.'s
testimony about the sexual conduct generally but not the specific
instance of sexual contact or digital penetration. Accordingly,
there is no basis to disturb the verdict based upon any perceived
inconsistency in the verdicts.
We also reject defendant's argument that an error in the jury
instruction led to the guilty verdict. Because clear and correct
jury charges are essential to a fair trial, State v. Adams, 194
N.J. 186, 207 (2008), "erroneous instructions on material points
are presumed to possess the capacity to unfairly prejudice the
defendant." State v. McKinney, 223 N.J. 475, 495 (2015) (citations
omitted). However, an error in the charge that could not have
affected the jury's deliberations does not amount to reversible
23 A-1598-14T1
error. State v. Docaj, 407 N.J. Super. 352, 366 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 213 N.J. 568 (2013). In that regard, "[i]f the
defendant does not object to the charge at the time it is given,
there is a presumption that the charge was not error and was
unlikely to prejudice the defendant's case." State v. Singleton,
211 N.J. 157, 182 (2012).
Here, defendant did not object to the charge. Because
defendant did not object at trial, we review the charge for plain
error. R. 1:7-2; R. 2:10-2; McKinney, supra, 223 N.J. at 494.
Plain error in this context is "[l]egal impropriety in the charge
prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant
sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and
to convince the court that of itself the error possessed a clear
capacity to bring about an unjust result." Adams, supra, 194 N.J.
at 207 (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997))
(alteration in original). When reviewing a charge for plain error,
an appellate court must not examine the "portions of the charge
alleged to be erroneous in isolation; rather, 'the charge should
be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect[.]'"
McKinney, supra, 223 N.J. at 494 (quoting Jordan, supra, 147 N.J.
at 422).
Here, in the written instructions given to the jury, on four
occasions, the word "would" is used in referring to the "sexual
24 A-1598-14T1
conduct which would impair or debauch" element of the child-
endangerment charge (emphasis added). However, on one occasion,
the word "could" mistakenly appears instead of "would." The jury
asked no questions that would suggest that it was confused or
misled by the error. "This was, then, an error that was isolated
rather than pervasive in the charge." Docaj, supra, 407 N.J.
Super. at 364.
As we stated in Docaj, where the trial court mistakenly used
the wrong word once out of four times in its jury charge on
passion/provocation manslaughter, the error "was but one iteration
imbedded in a charge that contained three entirely correct
articulations of the State's burden regarding the third factor[,]"
and the "isolated error's capacity to dispel" the effect of the
correct portions of the charge "was minimal, at best." Id. at
365. As in Docaj, here, the
error was one word that was literally buried
in a charge that was otherwise correct. The
error went unnoticed by the "experienced
jurists and lawyers" who "reviewed and
refined" the charge . . . as well as the trial
court and counsel here. We conclude that the
failure to object here reflected the obscure
nature of the error and that it is more likely
that the jury also depended upon the overall,
correct expressions of the controlling legal
principles rather than the one erroneous
statement here.
[Id. at 370 (citation omitted).]
25 A-1598-14T1
We note further that in the oral instructions given to the
jury, the court used "would" correctly on seven different
occasions. Therefore, when reading the charge as a whole, it
cannot be said that the typographical error in the written charge
was so misleading, confusing, or ambiguous that it was clearly
capable of producing an unjust result or that it led the jury to
a verdict that it otherwise might not have reached.
V.
Finally, in Point IV, defendant challenges his sentence as
excessive and unwarranted given "the crime for which the defendant
was found guilty, and the aggravating factors present[.]"
Defendant argues that in imposing "the maximum authorized
custodial base sentence[,]" the court fell short in its
"deliberative process" because "it did not acknowledge that it
began its aggravating/mitigating factor analysis at the three (3)
year minimum sentencing range for a crime of the third degree."
We disagree.
Trial judges have broad sentencing discretion. State v.
Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494, 500 (2005). Judges must identify and
consider "any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors" that
"are called to the court's attention[,]" and "explain how they
arrived at a particular sentence." State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49,
64-65 (2014) (quoting State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 297 (2010);
26 A-1598-14T1
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 74 (2014)). "Appellate review of
sentencing is deferential," and we therefore avoid substituting
our judgment for the judgment of the trial court. Case, supra,
220 N.J. at 65; see State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210, 215 (1989);
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 365 (1984). We will thus "affirm a
sentence under review unless: (1) the sentencing guidelines were
violated; (2) the findings of aggravating and mitigating factors
were not [supported by] competent credible evidence in the record;
or (3) the application of the guidelines to the facts of the case
shock[s] the judicial conscience." State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J.
221, 228 (2014) (citation omitted).
Here, the judge determined that aggravating factors three
(risk of re-offense), six (defendant's prior criminal record), and
nine (need for deterrence) applied, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3),
-1(a)(6), -1(a)(9), and that the aggravating factors substantially
outweighed the non-existent mitigating factors. The judge
explained that defendant's prior criminal history, which included
a prior conviction for criminal sexual contact involving the
victim's sister, supported the court's findings. We are satisfied
that the judge made findings of fact that were based on competent
and reasonably credible evidence in the record and applied the
correct sentencing guidelines enunciated in the Code. Further,
the sentence does not shock our judicial conscience. Case, supra,
27 A-1598-14T1
220 N.J. at 65; O'Donnell, supra, 117 N.J. at 215-16. Contrary
to defendant's assertion, the court was not required to begin its
deliberative process from the bottom of the sentencing range, but
rather from the middle "as a logical starting point" with
sentencing "toward the higher end of the range" if, as here, "the
aggravating factors preponderate[.]" State v. Natale, 184 N.J.
458, 488 (2005). Accordingly, we discern no basis to second-guess
the judge.4
Affirmed.
4
While this appeal was pending, over defendant's objection, the
State moved before the trial court to amend the judgment of
conviction pursuant to Rule 3:21-10(d) to require defendant's
compliance with the provisions of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to
-23. Rule 3:21-10(d) expressly excepts applications for
sentencing relief pending appeal from the general jurisdictional
bar of Rule 2:9-1(a) upon notice to the Appellate Division. After
we were duly notified, the motion was granted and the judgment of
conviction was amended accordingly.
28 A-1598-14T1