STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LUIS J. ROSARIO (16-04-0329, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2839-16T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
LUIS J. ROSARIO,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted November 14, 2018 – Decided April 1, 2019
Before Judges Rothstadt, Gilson and Natali.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 16-04-0329.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Michele E. Friedman, Assistant Deputy
Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Lauren Bonfiglio, Deputy Attorney
General, of counsel and on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
A jury convicted defendant of one count of second-degree certain persons
not to have weapons (certain persons offense), N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1), and the
trial court sentenced him to five years of imprisonment with a five-year period
of parole ineligibility. Defendant's conviction arose from the police discovering
a handgun in his vehicle. Prior to his trial, the trial court denied defendant's
motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing. After his conviction, he
appealed and, while retaining jurisdiction, we remanded the matter for an
evidentiary hearing "to determine whether the seizure of the handgun . . . was
permissible under the Plain View Doctrine." After our remand, the trial court
conducted the hearing and concluded that the police lawfully discovered
defendant's weapon in plain view.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his
suppression motion, delivering a charge to the jury that contained a
mischaracterization of a witness' identification testimony, and failing to
properly sanitize his prior convictions when required during the trial. For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
The facts leading to defendant's arrest and conviction as developed at his
trial are summarized as follows. During the evening of September 1, 2015,
Paterson police officers were dispatched to a memorial event for a homicide
A-2839-16T4
2
victim who was killed earlier in the day in the area where the event was
occurring. As the police arrived, a crowd of participants began to quickly
disperse. While observing the area, Detective Maribel Seabrooks noticed a
Hispanic male, whom she later identified as defendant, exiting a parked white
minivan with tinted windows, rather than leaving the scene with the crowd.
Detective Jack DeSalvo arrived at the scene as part of the investigation
relating to the homicide. He began to canvass the area for weapons or drugs that
a participant in the memorial may have dropped. He went over to the van that
Seabrooks had been watching and looked under it and through the driver-side
window, which was opened by about three to four inches, and observed a black
semiautomatic nine millimeter handgun.
After discovering the weapon, DeSalvo did not enter the van, but
contacted Detective Michael Cossari of the Crime Scene Unit and notified the
other detectives at the scene about the gun. Cossari responded and upon his
arrival, he took photographs of the van and the surrounding area before entering
the vehicle to retrieve the gun. The gun was later sent to State Police Trooper
Daniel Studzinski, an expert in Firearms and Firearms Operability, for ballistics
testing. Trooper Studzinski concluded that the gun "was operable and capable
of being discharged."
A-2839-16T4
3
While the police were retrieving the gun from his van, defendant was
walking away from the area where it was parked. As he did so, police
apprehended, arrested, and took him to police headquarters. The police also
confirmed that defendant owned the van.
A grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant with one count of
possession of weapon for an unlawful purpose in the second-degree, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-4(a)(1), one count of unlawful possession of a weapon in the second-
degree, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b), and the certain persons offense. Prior to trial, the
State elected to proceed only on the certain persons offense.
Also prior to his trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress. The trial court
denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing after concluding that the police
were lawfully canvassing the area of the memorial event and searching vehicles
"to obtain information about a homicide."
At trial, Seabrooks, DeSalvo, Cossari, and Studzinski testified for the
State. Defendant did not testify or present any witnesses. The parties stipulated
to various facts relating to the weapon that was recovered, the appropriate chain
of custody that police followed, and the van being registered to defendant. As
to defendant's underlying prior conviction that formed the basis for the certain
persons offense charge, the parties stipulated to the details about and to the
A-2839-16T4
4
admission of defendant's January 14, 2011 judgment of conviction 1 "for
distribution of a controlled dangerous substance, which made it unlawful for him
to purchase, own, possess, or control a firearm in the State of New Jersey." It
was undisputed that the judgment of conviction for that offense indicated that
defendant received a sentence of probation with a 364-day jail term.
At the end of the State's case, defendant made a motion for a judgment of
acquittal, arguing that the State failed to prove that he had a knowing intent to
possess the weapon. The State argued that there was constructive possession of
the gun when defendant was seen exiting the vehicle that was registered to him
and where the gun was visible to any occupant or outside observer. The trial
court denied the motion and found that the State produced enough evidence for
the jury to consider whether defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
At the conclusion of the trial, a unanimous jury found defendant guilty of the
certain persons offense.
Prior to sentencing, defendant filed a "motion to set aside the verdict and
enter a judgment of acquittal." The motion was supported by counsel's
1
Although marked in evidence, neither party has provided us with a copy of the
judgment of conviction. We understand that only the first page of the document
was admitted into evidence.
A-2839-16T4
5
certification in which defendant argued that a Brady2 discovery violation that
had been ruled upon by another judge before trial, deprived him of a fair trial.
He also contended for the first time that the prosecutor's reference during
summations to his underlying conviction, as stipulated to by the parties,
deprived him of a fair trial, as did the jury's consideration of a copy of his
judgment of conviction for the drug offense and the jury charge that referred to
it was well. In addition, defendant argued for the first time that the information
about the earlier conviction should have been sanitized under State v. Brown,
180 N.J. 572, 585 (2004). Finally, he argued that the State failed "to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that . . . defendant had knowledge or knowingly
possessed, purchased, owned, or controlled a hand gun." After considering the
motion, the trial court denied defendant's motion, placing its reasons on the
record, and proceeded to impose its sentence.
After our remand, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the
sole issue of whether DeSalvo lawfully recovered the gun. DeSalvo testified
and recounted the events leading to his discovery of the weapon in defendant's
vehicle and about several photos of the vehicle and the gun. After considering
the testimony and photographs, the trial court found that DeSalvo was credible
2
Brady v. Maryland, 377 U.S. 83 (1963).
A-2839-16T4
6
and that he was lawfully in the area conducting an investigation when he saw
the gun in plain view because of the way the gun was placed in the car and the
facts that the window was partially open and the door was unlocked.
On appeal, defendant specifically argues the following:
POINT I
THE MOTION COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR WHEN DENYING THE DEFENSE'S
REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON
THE SUPPRESSION MOTION,
NOTWITHSTANDING MATERIAL FACTS IN
DISPUTE.
POINT II
THE COURT MISCHARACTERIZED THE TRIAL
TESTIMONY DURING THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS
WHEN STATING THAT OFFICER SEABROOKS
TESTIFIED THAT SHE IDENTIFIED MR. ROSARIO
AS THE INDIVIDUAL WHO COMMITTED THE
CRIME, WHEN SHE HAD ONLY IDENTIFIED HIM
AS THE PERSON WHO EXITED THE VAN. (NOT
RAISED BELOW).
POINT III
PURSUANT TO STATE V. BROWN, THE TRIAL
COURT HAD AN INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION
TO SANITIZE MR. ROSARIO'S PREDICATE
OFFENSE, WITHIN BOTH THE PRIOR JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION AND THE JURY CHARGE
ITSELF. (NOT RAISED BELOW).
We are not persuaded by any of defendant's contentions.
A-2839-16T4
7
Turning first to defendant's argument about the denial of his suppression
motion, at the outset, we note that after the remand hearing conducted by the
trial court, defendant did not file a supplemental brief challenging the trial
court's decision. The State submitted a supplemental brief in which it argued
that the trial court correctly found that DeSalvo found defendant's weapon in
plain view.
Because defendant did not challenge the trial court's determination after
the remand and the focus of his original argument on appeal was that the court
failed to conduct that hearing, we conclude defendant's appeal from the denial
of his suppression motion is now moot. See State v. Alford, 99 N.J. 199 (1984);
State v. Davila, 443 N.J. Super. 577, 584 (App. Div. 2016) (explaining that New
Jersey courts "do not resolve issues that have become moot due to the passage
of time or intervening events" (quoting City of Camden v. Whitman, 325 N.J.
Super. 236, 243 (App. Div. 1999))). To the extent that defendant's challenge
can be understood to relate to issues beyond the denial of an evidentiary hearing,
we find it to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We affirm the motion's denial substantially for the
reasons expressed by the trial court in its July 16, 2018 oral decision, which we
conclude was supported by substantial, credible evidence and was legally
A-2839-16T4
8
correct. See State v. Watts, 223 N.J. 503, 516 (2015) (addressing our standard
of review); State v. Earls, 214 N.J. 564, 592 (2013) (addressing the plain view
exception to the warrant requirement); State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517,
534 (App. Div. 2013) ("[a] simple observation into the interior of an automobile
by a police officer located outside the automobile is not a 'search' within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment" (alteration in original) (quoting State v.
Foley, 218 N.J. Super. 210, 215 (App. Div. 1987))).
We next address defendant's contention that the trial court erred when it
"mischaracterized" Seabrooks' testimony about her observation of defendant. At
trial, Seabrooks testified that she clearly saw the individual who exited the white
van, who she identified as defendant in court.
The court, as part of its jury instructions regarding Seabrooks' in-court
identification of defendant, described her testimony as follows:
The State has presented the testimony of Officer
Seabrooks. You will recall that this witness identified
the defendant in court as the person who committed the
crime. The State also presented testimony that, on a
prior occasion, before this trial, this witness identified
the defendant as the person who committed this
offense. According to this witness, her identification
of the defendant was based upon the observations and
perceptions that she made of the perpetrator at the time
the offense was being committed.
A-2839-16T4
9
The court also instructed that in order to prove defendant was guilty of the
certain persons offense, the State had to prove the elements of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt. It stated:
First, that [one of the exhibits entered into evidence
during trial] is a firearm. Second, that . . . defendant
knowingly purchased, owned, possessed, or controlled
the firearm on September 1[], 2015[.] And third,
that . . . defendant is a person who has been previously
convicted of distribution of a controlled dangerous
substance.
The court also advised the jury that "constructive possession" referred to:
[P]ossession in which the possessor does not physically
have the item on his person, but is aware that the item
is present, and is able to, and has the intention to
exercise control of it. So someone who has knowledge
of the character of an item and knowingly has both the
power and the intention, at a given time, to exercise
control over it, either directly or to another person or
persons, is then in constructive possession of that item.
Defendant, who did not object to the jury instructions at trial, now
maintains that contrary to what the court stated, Seabrooks identified defendant
as the individual exiting the van, but did not testify that she saw or identified
defendant as committing the certain persons offense or that defendant had the
gun on his person. For that reason, defendant maintains that the court's
instruction was misleading. He adds that, in viewing the charge as a whole and
the absence of additional testimony regarding other individuals in the van, the
A-2839-16T4
10
jurors may have assumed that the "mischaracterization" of the identification
stemmed from the trial court's inference that defendant possessed the gun by
virtue of leaving the van. We find no merit to this contention.
As defendant did not raise this issue before the trial court, we consider
whether the trial court's instruction was erroneous and, if so, whether the error
constitutes plain error. R. 2:10-2; see also State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79
(2016). As applied to jury instructions, plain error is an error that "prejudicially
affect[s]" a defendant's substantial rights in a "sufficiently grievous" manner,
which has the "clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." State v. Afanador,
151 N.J. 41, 54 (1997) (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)); see
also Funderburg, 225 N.J. at 79. "The mere possibility of an unjust result is not
enough. To warrant reversal . . . an error at trial must be sufficient to raise 'a
reasonable doubt . . . as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise
might not have reached.'" Funderburg, 225 N.J. at 79 (second alteration in
original) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 361 (2004)).
To be sure, "[a]ppropriate and proper charges are essential for a fair trial."
State v. Baum, 224 N.J. 147, 158-59 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting State
v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 613 (2004)). "The trial court must give 'a
comprehensible explanation of the questions that the jury must determine,
A-2839-16T4
11
including the law of the case applicable to the facts that the jury may find.'" Id.
at 159 (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 287-88 (1981)). "Thus, the court
has an 'independent duty . . . to ensure that the jurors receive accurate
instructions on the law as it pertains to the facts and issues of each case,
irrespective of the particular language suggested by either party.'" Ibid.(alteration in original) (quoting Reddish, 181 N.J. at 613). "Because proper jury
instructions are essential to a fair trial, 'erroneous instructions on material points
are presumed to' possess the capacity to unfairly prejudice the defendant." Ibid.(quoting State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534, 541-42 (2004)); see also State v.
Singleton, 211 N.J. 157, 182-83 (2012).
Model jury charges are a valuable resource and may guide a court's
instructions to the jury. See State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373, 379 (1988).
"When a jury instruction follows the model jury charge, although not
determinative, 'it is a persuasive argument in favor of the charge as delivered.'"
State v. Whitaker, 402 N.J. Super. 495, 513-14 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting State
v. Angoy, 329 N.J. Super. 79, 84 (App. Div. 2000)).
Here, it is undisputed that the challenged charge essentially mirrored the
model jury charge. See Model Jury Charges (Criminal) "Identification: In-Court
and Out-of-Court Identifications" (rev. July 19, 2012). Moreover, there was no
A-2839-16T4
12
dispute that Seabrooks testified that it was defendant who was the person who
left the van in which the weapon was found. It was never alleged that the
weapon was found on defendant, only that he possessed it by having it in his
vehicle, and the trial court charged the jury with the appropriate definition of
possession.
Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that the trial court's jury
charge, taken as a whole, did not mischaracterize Seabrooks' testimony. We
therefore discern no error, let alone plain error, in the court's charge to the jury.
The charge was given in accordance with the Model Jury Charge, and "'the
charge as a whole [was not] misleading[ and] set[] forth accurately and fairly
the controlling principles of law.'" State v. McKinney, 223 N.J. 475, 496 (2015)
(quoting State v. Jackmon, 305 N.J. Super. 274, 299 (App. Div. 1997)).
Last, we consider defendant's argument that his trial was "fatally flawed"
because the details of his prior felony conviction for a drug offense were not
sanitized for the jury. The parties brought defendant's prior conviction for a
drug offense to the attention of the jury through a stipulation that the conviction
was the basis for the certain persons offense charge made against him. Based
on that stipulation, without any objection, defendant's judgment of conviction
for the underlying offense was admitted into evidence without redaction. During
A-2839-16T4
13
summations, the prosecutor referred to the conviction without any objection by
defendant. In addition, without objection, during the instructions to the jury, the
trial court advised the jury of the nature of the specific charge and that "the
parties have stipulated or agreed that . . . defendant has previously been
convicted of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance." It did so again,
without objection, when describing the elements of the certain persons offense
that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial court also issued to the jury a limiting instruction as to its use of
the stipulation about defendant's prior conviction. The court instructed that the
evidence of defendant's prior crime
has been introduced for the specific purpose of
establishing an element of the present offense. You
may not use this evidence to decide that . . . defendant
has a tendency to commit crimes or that he is a bad
person. That is, you may not decide that, just
because . . . defendant has committed prior crimes, he
must be guilty of the present crime.
The reason that defendant never objected to the use of the details of his
prior conviction became apparent during oral argument on defendant's motion
to set aside the verdict. At that time, defense counsel explained that the
stipulation was entered into for strategic purposes so that the jury would not
speculate defendant had any type of "big conviction" and, as stated in his
A-2839-16T4
14
judgment of conviction, it would know he only received probation for his
offense.
On appeal, relying upon the Supreme Court's opinion in Brown, defendant
argues that not sanitizing the details of his prior offense resulted in an unfair
trial. He contends that the court violated Brown by not instructing the jury that
he was only convicted of a predicate offense and that the details of his prior
offense were not redacted from the judgment of conviction. He adds that
repeated references to his conviction were "entirely unnecessary" and
prejudicial. For these reasons, he argues that a reversal is required. We
disagree.
Because defendant's contentions are raised for the first time on appeal,
"we review for plain error." Funderburg, 225 N.J. at 79.
Under that standard, we disregard any alleged error
"unless it is of such a nature as to have been clearly
capable of producing an unjust result." The mere
possibility of an unjust result is not enough. To warrant
reversal by this [c]ourt, an error at trial must be
sufficient to raise "a reasonable doubt . . . as to whether
the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not
have reached."
[Ibid. (second alteration in original) (citations
omitted).]
Applying that standard, we find no plain error here.
A-2839-16T4
15
The certain persons offense statute sets forth predicate offenses for which
a defendant must have been convicted prior to being found in possession of a
weapon.
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1) provides that[:]
[a] person having been convicted in this
State or elsewhere of the crime of
aggravated assault, arson, burglary, escape,
extortion, homicide, kidnapping, robbery,
aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault,
bias intimidation in violation of [N.J.S.A.]
2C:16-1, endangering the welfare of a child
pursuant to [N.J.S.A.] 2C:24-4, stalking
pursuant to [L. 1992, c. 209 (N.J.S.A.
2C:12-10)] or a crime involving domestic
violence as defined in section 3 of [L.
1991, c. 261 (N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19)], . . . or a
person having been convicted of a crime
pursuant to the provisions of [N.J.S.A.]
2C:35-3 through [N.J.S.A.] 2C:35-6,
inclusive; section 1 of [L. 1987, c. 101
(N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7)]; [N.J.S.A.] 2C:35-11;
[N.J.S.A.] 2C:39-3; [N.J.S.A.] 2C:39-4; or
[N.J.S.A.] 2C:39-9 who purchases, owns,
possesses or controls a firearm is guilty of
a crime of the second degree and upon
conviction thereof, the person shall be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment by the
court.
[State v. Bailey, 231 N.J. 474, 484 (2018) (alterations
in original).]
A-2839-16T4
16
In Brown, the Court stated that where a defendant stipulated that he was
previously convicted of a predicate offense, there is no need to explain the nature
of the offense to the jury, as the State is relieved of the need to offer any more
proof on that subject. Brown, 180 N.J. at 585. "If the defendant does not
stipulate, then the trial court should sanitize the offense or offenses and limit the
evidence to the date of the judgment." Ibid.In Bailey, the Court clarified Brown "[t]o the extent that Brown mentioned
in dicta that, in cases where the defendant does not stipulate, all that is requi red
is the date of the judgment . . . ." Bailey, 231 N.J. at 491. In that case,
"defendant did not stipulate to the predicate convictions that prohibited him
from possessing a firearm. The parties agreed that evidence of defendant's prior
convictions would be sanitized, that is, 'redacted except for the date and the
degree of the offense.'" Id. at 478-79. After considering the defendant's appeal,
we affirmed his conviction, "determin[ing] that any error was invited. . . . [as
we] concluded that no injustice occurred as the State was ready and able to
introduce evidence of defendant's prior convictions but redacted them on
defense counsel's request." Id. at 480.
A-2839-16T4
17
In reversing our determination, the Court first reiterated the information
that should go to the jury when a defendant stipulates to having been convicted
of a predicate offense. It stated:
If a defendant chooses to stipulate, evidence of the
predicate offense is extremely limited: "[t]he most the
jury needs to know is that the conviction admitted by
the defendant falls within the class of crimes that . . .
bar a convict from possessing a gun[.]" [Old Chief v.
U.S., 519 U.S. 172, 190-91 (1997)]. A defendant who
stipulates can therefore prevent the State from
presenting evidence of the name and nature of the
offense. Provided that the stipulation is a knowing and
voluntary waiver of rights, placed on the record in
defendant's presence, the prosecution is limited to
announcing to the jury that the defendant has
committed an offense that satisfies the statutory
predicate-offense element.
[Id. at 488 (first, second, and third alterations in
original) (emphasis added).]
The Court stated, however, that a defendant could request that the jury be
provided with more detail. In reviewing the model jury charge that was in effect
at defendant's trial here,3 the Court noted that the instruction to the charge
advised that "'[n]othing prevents a defendant, however, from choosing to inform
the jury of the name of the prior crime of which he/she was convicted .'" Id. at
3
The charge was later amended. See Model Jury Charges (Criminal), "Certain
Persons Not To Have Any Firearms (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1))" (rev. Feb. 12,
2018).
A-2839-16T4
18
487 (emphasis added) (quoting Model Jury Charges (Criminal), "Certain
Persons Not To Have Any Firearms (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1))" 1 n.4 (rev. June
13, 2005)).
Addressing the nature of the information that a jury must consider where
there is no stipulation, the Court stated the following:
[A] certain persons conviction cannot stand without
proof that a defendant has been previously convicted of
an offense specifically enumerated in the certain
persons statute. When a defendant refuses to stipulate
to a predicate offense under the certain persons statute,
the State shall produce evidence of the predicate
offense: the judgment of conviction with the unredacted
nature of the offense, the degree of offense, and the date
of conviction.
[Id. at 490-91.]
Unlike the defendants in Brown and Bailey, defendant here stipulated that
he was previously convicted for distributing a controlled dangerous substance
and wanted the jury to know he only received probation for that offense as
compared to being guilty of a more serious crime. For that reason, the trial court
instructed the jury about the nature of defendant's predicate offense and allowed
the judgment of conviction to be admitted into evidence without redaction. It
did so at defendant's request and without any objection, despite numerous
A-2839-16T4
19
opportunities for defendant to raise one. Under these circumstances, we discern
no error in the trial court's actions.
Even if it was error, the inclusion of the identity of the offense and
sentence was the result of invited error. "Under that settled principle of law,
trial errors that 'were induced, encouraged or acquiesced in or consented to by
defense counsel ordinarily are not a basis for reversal on appeal.'" Id. at 490
(quoting State v. A.R., 213 N.J. 542, 561 (2013)). We rely upon the doctrine of
invited error to prevent a "'disappointed litigant' [from] argu[ing] on appeal that
a prior ruling was erroneous 'when that party urged the lower court to adopt the
proposition now alleged to be error.'" Ibid. (quoting A.R., 213 N.J. at 561). We
will not apply the doctrine where, for example as in Bailey, "the error cut
mortally into defendant's due process right to have the jury decide each el ement
beyond a reasonable doubt" through the prior conviction's redaction, eliminating
any reference that it was for a predicate offense necessary to proving a certain
persons offense. Ibid.
Here, it is undisputed that defendant wanted the jury to know the natu re
of his underlying conviction, even though all the jury needed to know was that
it satisfied the element of a predicate offense for a certain persons conviction.
Defense counsel explained the strategy underlying defendant's consent to the
A-2839-16T4
20
trial court's actions was an attempt to minimize the impact of a prior conviction.
Defendant's decision to allow the information to go to the jury without objection
does not entitle him to now complain about the court's actions simply because
the strategy was not successful. Moreover, even if the error, if any, was not
invited, we conclude that based on the other evidence adduced at trial and the
trial court's limiting instruction, the admission of the details about his drug
offense was not clearly capable of producing an unjust result.
Affirmed.
A-2839-16T4
21