STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. OLAJUWAN HERBERT (12-11-2693, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5096-14T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
OLAJUWAN HERBERT,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Argued February 12, 2018 – Decided January 10, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino, Ostrer and Whipple (Judge
Ostrer concurring).
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 12-11-2693.
James K. Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E.
Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Mark H.
Friedman, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of
counsel and on the brief).
Lucille M. Rosano, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
for respondent (Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex
County Prosecutor, attorney; Lucille M. Rosano, of
counsel and on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
OSTRER, J.A.D.
Convicted of purposeful murder and related firearms offenses, defendant
Olajuwan Herbert principally contends his trial was irremediably tainted by a
detective's reference to defendant's alleged gang membership, and by
eyewitnesses' statements that they had been afraid to testify or identify
themselves. The court sustained defendant's objection to the comment about
gang membership, but denied his motion for a mistrial. The court held it cured
any resulting prejudice by instructing the jury that there was no information in
the case about gang involvement and that the jury should disregard the
statement. The court overruled defense objections to the eyewitnesses'
continued use of pseudonyms and references to fear of testifying, relying on its
instruction to the jury that the use of pseudonyms was simply a matter of
police procedure and the witnesses' desire for privacy.
We conclude a new trial is required because the court's instructions were
inadequate to cure the prejudice caused by the gang reference. We therefore
do not reach the issue of the eyewitnesses' repeated reference to pseudonyms
and expressions of fear.
A-5096-14T1
2
I.
Harold Claudio was shot to death in an alley off Thomas Street in
Newark. The alley runs between a school on one side and a playground and
two basketball courts on the other. The homicide occurred on June 9, 2012, at
around 8:30 p.m. The principal witnesses at the trial were an investigating
detective, Tyrone Crawley, and two eyewitnesses, Lizaire Arce, a cousin of the
victim, and Jessica Maldonado, who happened to be in the area but knew
neither the victim nor defendant.
Arce testified that the previous week, she saw Alberto Torres, a cousin
of hers and the victim's, fight with defendant at the playground. Torres got the
better of defendant, and Arce overheard her cousin call defendant by the
nickname "Gunner" 1 as he chased him from the playground. It was the first
time Arce had ever seen defendant.
Arce said the next time she saw defendant, shortly before the murder, he
entered the playground area with Claudio and two other men she did not know.
Although it was around 8:30 p.m., Arce said it was bright out. She claimed
she could identify defendant, although, as the parties later stipulated, she was
1
The defense did not register an objection to use of that nickname,
notwithstanding that defendant was accused of gunning down the victim. See
State v. Paduani, 307 N.J. Super. 134, 147 (App. Div. 1998) (stating that
pejorative nicknames, such as "Marijuana" or "Trouble," should be kept from a
jury unless relevant for some purpose).
A-5096-14T1
3
sitting 107 feet, 11 inches from the place of the murder. Also, several
teenagers were playing ball on the basketball court in front of her, and chain-
link fences stood between her and defendant. She testified that she observed
defendant raise his left arm while stepping closer to Claudio, then heard three
gunshots, although she did not actually see a gun in defendant's hand. Arce
testified that she saw defendant and the two others run out of the playground,
across Pennsylvania Avenue, and up the block to Brunswick Avenue, where
defendant entered the rear seat of a 1993 or 1994 blue Honda Accord with a
silver sunroof.
Arce went to her cousin's side and saw that a bullet had struck the back
of his head. Concluding he was "done," she left the area without calling 911.
She spent time with a boyfriend and then a female friend but did not speak to
police because, she said, she feared for herself and her family. However, she
spoke to the police two days later, after her aunt, Claudio's mother, asked her
to do so. Arce identified defendant from a photo array, and later identified
him in court, as well.
Arce signed defendant's photo as "Jane Doe" and initialed the others she
viewed "J.D." At trial, she testified she did so for "her safety." The defense
objected, contending there was no evidence that defendant did anything to
cause her to be fearful, and asked for an instruction to that effect. The court
A-5096-14T1
4
denied the request. Apparently referring to Arce's reasons for her two -day
delay in speaking to police, as opposed to her reason for signing the photos as
Jane Doe, the court said the State was entitled to explain why Arce "didn't do
certain things" before the defense raised the matter on cross-examination.
Throughout the trial, the prosecutor and Detective Crawley, the State's
key law enforcement witness, repeatedly referred to Arce as Jane Doe. The
officer who presented the photo array to Arce also said he knew her only as
Jane Doe. He testified, without an immediate objection, that he was informed
she used the pseudonym to avoid identification and "retaliation." 2
As the defense elicited, Arce testified inconsistently about the lighting
conditions at the crime scene; the distance from which she observed defendant;
and the presence of other persons in the area. Based on these inconsistencies,
the defense challenged Arce's ability to accurately identify faces, and to
observe defendant's alleged flight in a vehicle parked over a block away.
The other eyewitness, Jessica Maldonado, testified that she heard what
sounded like fireworks after she parked on Thomas Street. She was on her
2
Defense counsel later asked for a curative instruction that defendant never
threatened retaliation, but the court noted that defense counsel had not timely
objected. Defense counsel responded that she did not want to highlight the
issue again, particularly in light of the court's refusal to provide an instruction
on the topic during Arce's own testimony. The court asked defense counsel to
submit a written instruction for its consideration, but counsel apparently did
not pursue the matter further.
A-5096-14T1
5
way to a baby shower at the church across the street, at the corner of Thomas
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. A passerby told her he thought the sound
was gunshots. She grabbed her three-year-old daughter out of the car and
headed down the block. On the other side of the street, Maldonado saw a
group of four or five men running in the opposite direction, accompanied by a
man on a bicycle. For a second, she made eye contact with one man as he
turned to look back. He was holding his pants and shirt to cover an object.
She could not see it, but it had the shape of a gun.
Three days later, she selected defendant's photo from a photo array,
signing the photo as "Jane Doe 2." At trial, the court overruled the defense's
objection to any mention of Maldonado's use of the pseudonym, but prevented
Maldonado from explaining why she used it. The State repeatedly referred to
her as Jane Doe 2 thereafter. Maldonado did not make an in-court
identification.
The defense elicited inconsistencies between Arce's and Maldonado's
testimony. Arce alleged that a light-skinned man almost six feet tall with
shoulder-length, orange-tipped dreadlocks accompanied defendant; yet,
Maldonado saw no such person, testifying that all the men running from the
scene had short hair and brown skin. Arce said defendant wore light-blue
capri pants, a red-and-white shirt, and Air Force sneakers. Maldonado testified
A-5096-14T1
6
that defendant wore baggy, regular-length blue jeans and a white or gray tee-
shirt. Arce said there were no cars parked on Thomas Street between
Pennsylvania Avenue and Brunswick Avenue, which gave her an unobstructed
view of defendant's flight. She did not see a woman with a child. Yet,
Maldonado testified that it was difficult to find parking near the church, cars
were parked on both sides of the street, and she was on the sidewalk with her
child when the men fled past her. Arce said the four men all fled on foot.
Maldonado said there was at least one man on a bicycle.
Maldonado's out-of-court identification was also challenged. She
admitted that she found the identification procedure "hard"; the men in two
other photos also looked "similar" to the man she had seen; and she selected
defendant's photo only after the officer told her, in response to her question,
that she had to pick just one photo. She testified that she ultimately picked
defendant's photo because it depicted him with facial hair; however, in her
2012 statement to Detective Crawley, she said she could not tell if the man she
saw had facial hair because it was getting dark and she was not wearing her
glasses.
Detective Crawley testified that when defendant was taken into custody,
he was wearing sneakers that fit Arce's description. However, there was no
blood or other forensic evidence tying the sneakers to the homicide.
A-5096-14T1
7
Subsequent searches of defendant's residence and cellphones were fruitless.
The weapon was not recovered, and video surveillance in the vicinity was
unilluminating.
Crawley also admitted at trial that he had received information that
someone else was responsible for the shooting. Torres, Arce's cousin,
reportedly told the detective that someone named Bibble had bragged he
committed the murder. But, because the State was unable to secure Torres's
presence at trial, the court barred any reference to Torres's statement on
hearsay grounds.
Also, before trial, a different judge, relying on State v. Goodman, 415
N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 2010), had permitted Torres to testify that
Claudio's murder arose from a gang conflict. But, with Torres absent, gang
references were barred.
Yet, despite the court's order, Crawley injected the subject of gangs
twice.3 The first time, on direct examination, he was asked why he did not
speak to the teenagers who were playing in the basketball court, though Arce
had identified several of them by name. He answered it was a "high-crime,
drug, gang area, and the people that live in that area are in fear of the police."
3
The prosecutor later said that Crawley's references to gangs were "totally
inappropriate," and that "the State had gone out of its way to prep every
witness not to go into any gang information."
A-5096-14T1
8
The court sustained the defense's objection, denied a mistrial request, and
instructed the jury to disregard the statement, which was complete "speculation
and conjecture on [the detective's] part" as he had no information "as to why
anyone didn't come forward, or if there were any people that could come
forward." The judge did not address the statement that the crime occurred in a
"gang area."
The second time, on redirect, the prosecutor asked Detective Crawley if
Arce had explained how she was able to identify defendant. The court
overruled a hearsay-based objection from the defense. Then, the detective
stated, referring to the alleged previous altercation between defendant and
Torres, "Yes, she told me, approximately a week ago, Gunner, who is a gang
member . . . ."
The court denied another defense request for a mistrial. Instead, in a
curative instruction, the judge directed the jury to disregard the detective's
answer. The judge asserted there was "no information" in the case that gangs
were involved – without directly addressing the detective's assertion about
defendant in particular. In the same instruction, the judge decided to issue a
limiting instruction regarding the eyewitnesses' use of pseudonyms, asserting
both that the witnesses wanted to shield their identity and that it was merely a
matter of police procedure.
A-5096-14T1
9
The judge stated:
Ladies and Gentlemen, our function here -- I
mean your function -- is to determine the guilt or
innocence of Mr. Herbert fairly and impartially based
upon the evidence.
Sometimes during the course of the trial,
information comes to the attention of the jury and it
has no place in this trial. In other words, it's
prejudicial. As I told you from the beginning, fair and
impartial means not being prejudicial; it means fair.
Now, Detective Crawley mentioned gangs a few
minutes ago, unintentionally. I tell you now there's no
information in this case whatsoever there's any gangs
involved in this case whatsoever. Nothing
whatsoever. You've heard nothing beforehand, you've
heard nothing now, and that statement by Detective
Crawley obviously was unintentional, number one.
Number two, I want to bring you to the -- to
your attention again -- maybe I should have said this is
before -- you know, the two witnesses we're [sic]
giving [sic] John [sic] Doe 1 and John [sic] Doe 2; all
right? There's no rationale for that other than the fact
that they wanted to keep their identity private. All
right?
You should not conclude, because they had Jane
Doe 1, and Jane Doe 2, that carries any kind of
implication whatsoever. It does not; all right?
So the gang situation, the John [sic] Doe
situations are routine, -- the Jane Doe situation is
routine police work repeatedly in these kind of cases,
it's just done that way, and you can't consider that
whatsoever. So you can't consider that, and you can't
consider the gang situation.
A-5096-14T1
10
I'm going to read you again what I read to you
before. I direct that you not use this stricken
testimony in your deliberations. By my striking the
answer and directing that you disregard and not use
this information, I'm not asking you to forget it. To
the contrary, I'm asking that you remember what was
stricken and understand that if, during your
deliberations, you realize that the information is
necessary to your decision, you may not use it.
Okay? Are we on the right page?
JURORS: Yes.
[(Emphasis added).]
In cross-examination of Crawley, the defense had pointed out
inconsistencies between the testimony of Arce and Maldonado, suggesting that
Crawley should have conducted a more thorough investigation. On redirect,
the prosecutor was permitted to elicit why those inconsistencies did not deter
him from seeking an arrest warrant. For example, regarding the inconsistent
clothing descriptions, Crawley was permitted to offer his opinion that
Maldonado was more focused on her child, while Arce was "affixed to"
defendant, because of the previous incident.
Defendant did not testify or call witnesses on his behalf. In summation,
defense counsel responded to the eyewitnesses' use of pseudonyms, noting
there was no evidence that defendant threatened or intimidated them. The
defense also highlighted inconsistencies in the eyewitnesses' identifications.
A-5096-14T1
11
The State, in its summation, minimized those inconsistencies, and suggested
that defendant's motive was to retaliate for the incident the week earlier,
although defendant's assailant was Torres and not the victim.
The jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
3(a)(1), (2); second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-
5(b)(1); and second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(a). The court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment on
the murder conviction, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-
7.2, and a concurrent five-year term, subject to the Graves Act, N.J.S.A.
2C:43-6(c), on the conviction for unlawful possession of a handgun. The
remaining charge was merged.
II.
In his counseled brief, defendant raises the following points for our
consideration:
POINT I
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL AND
DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN DETECTIVE
CRAWLEY IMPROPERLY TOLD THE JURY THAT
"GUNNER [DEFENDANT] IS A GANG MEMBER"
AND THE TRIAL COURT DENIED DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL.
A-5096-14T1
12
POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR BY ALLOWING DETECTIVE CRAWLEY
TO TESTIFY AS TO WHY HE OBTAINED AN
ARREST WARRANT DESPITE THE
INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE TWO
IDENTIFICATION WITNESSES REGARDING THE
DESCRIPTIONS OF THE CLOTHING WORN BY
THE SUSPECT.
POINT III
DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS MANIFESTLY
EXCESSIVE AND UNDULY PUNITIVE.
In a supplemental pro se brief, defendant argues:
POINT I
DEFENDANT'S STATE AND FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL
BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY AND DUE PROCESS
OF LAW WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE
PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN A CONVERSATION
WITH ONE OF THE JUROR[]S.
POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING
DETECTIVE CRAWLEY'S TESTIMONY AS TO
WHY HE OBTAINED AN ARREST WARRANT
DESPITE THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN
THE TWO I[]DENTIFICATION WITNESSES
REGARDING THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE
CLOTHING WORN BY THE SUSPECT
(Supplemented to Point II of Primary Brief).
A-5096-14T1
13
POINT III
THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES USED BY
THE POLICE WERE IMPERMISSIBLY
SUGGESTIVE LEADING TO A SUBSTANTIAL
LIKELIHOOD OF MISIDENTIFICATION.
POINT IV
TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR BY ALLOWING THE PROSECUTION TO
INTRODUCE EVIDENCE VIA IMPROPER
IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE THAT DEPRIVED
DEFENDANT SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS OF
LAW AND RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (Not Raised
Below).
POINT V
THE TRIAL COURT'S CHARGE ON THE ISSUE
OF IDENTIFICATION WAS FLAWED,
THEREFORE VIOLATING DEFENDANT'S STATE
AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (Not
Raised Below).
POINT VI
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT A NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUNDS
THAT THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
POINT VII
THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO CHARGE THE
JURY ON THE LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSES
OF ASSAULT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF DUE
PROCESS AND HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.
U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI, XIV, N.J. CONST. ART.
I, ¶ 1, 10 (Not Raised Below).
A-5096-14T1
14
III.
A.
The Court in State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640, 646-47 (1984), addressed the
specific issue posed here – "whether inadmissible evidence is of such a nature
as to be susceptible of being cured by a cautionary or limiting instruction, or
instead requires the more severe response of a mistrial." The Court held the
decision "is one that is peculiarly within the competence of the trial judge, who
has the feel of the case and is best equipped to gauge the effect of a prejudicial
comment on the jury in the overall setting." Id. at 647. Consequently, "[a]
motion for a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the [trial] court;
and the denial of the motion is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion."
Ibid. (quoting State v. Witte, 13 N.J. 598, 611 (1953)); see also State v.
Yough, 208 N.J. 385, 397 (2011) (stating that whether a curative instruction
can neutralize a prejudicial remark is within the trial court's competence);
State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 205 (1997) (stating an appellate court must find
"an abuse of discretion that results in a manifest injustice" to overturn a trial
court's mistrial ruling).
The same deferential standard that applies to the mistrial-or-no-mistrial
decision applies to review of the curative instruction itself. Winter, 96 N.J. at
647. In particular, a trial court is in the best position to assess the impact of an
A-5096-14T1
15
evidentiary ruling. See Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494, 512 (1994) (stating
that "[d]eference should be accorded to the trial court's conclusion concerning
the prejudice attributable to the" trial court's rulings and "the extent to which
that prejudice contributed to an unjust result").
B.
There is tension in our case law governing curative and limiting
instructions. The authority is abundant that courts presume juries follow
instructions. For example, in State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295, 390 (1996), the
Court stated, "That the jury will follow the instructions given is presumed."
The presumption is founded in part on necessity. "[T]he courts must rely upon
the jurors' ability and willingness to follow the limiting instruction without
cavil or question." State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259, 270 (1969). The presumption
is "[o]ne of the foundations of our jury system." State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312,
335 (2007).
Yet, some view the presumption skeptically. As Justice Jackson stated,
"The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions
to the jury . . . all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction."
Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 453 (1949) (Jackson, J.,
concurring). Noting, if not adopting, that skeptical view, our Supreme Court
has found, "There are undoubtedly situations in which notwithstanding the
A-5096-14T1
16
most exemplary charge, a juror will find it impossible to disregard such a
prejudicial statement." State v. Boone, 66 N.J. 38, 48 (1974) (citing
Krulewitch, 336 U.S. at 453). For example, the Court found that a limiting
instruction could never cure the prejudicial effect from the admission of a
defendant's prior but withdrawn guilty plea. Id. at 50.
The United States Supreme Court reached the same conclusion regarding
the admission of a co-conspirator's confession that implicates a defendant.
"[T]here are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot,
follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the
defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot
be ignored." Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 135 (1968).
Without delving into the many empirical studies on jury behavior, we
believe that jury compliance with curative and limiting instructions is neither
all truth nor all fiction. The answer is somewhere in between. See David A.
Sklansky, Evidentiary Instructions and the Jury as Other, 65 Stan. L. Rev. 407,
423-39 (2013) (Evidentiary Instructions) (analyzing various empirical studies).
As Professor Sklansky has noted, "The reality is . . . that evidentiary
instructions probably do work, but imperfectly, and better under some
conditions than others." Id. at 409.
A-5096-14T1
17
The decision to opt for a curative or limiting instruction, instead of a
mistrial or new trial, depends on at least three factors. First, a court should
consider the nature of the inadmissible evidence the jury heard, and its
prejudicial effect. "The adequacy of a curative instruction necessarily focuses
on the capacity of the offending evidence to lead to a verdict that could not
otherwise be justly reached." Winter, 96 N.J. at 647. Additionally, while a
general charge may suffice to cure "only slightly improper" remarks, "a single
curative instruction may not be sufficient to cure the prejudice resulting from
cumulative errors at trial." State v. Vallejo, 198 N.J. 122, 136 (2009) (quoting
State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76, 86-87 (1999)).
Evidence that bears directly on the ultimate issue before the jury may be
less suitable to curative or limiting instructions than evidence that is indirect
and that requires additional logical linkages. For example, distinguishi ng
between a co-conspirator's confession that directly implicates a defendant and
a confession that only inferentially does so, the United States Supreme Court
noted that "[s]pecific testimony that 'the defendant helped me commit the
crime' is more vivid than inferential incrimination, and hence more difficult to
thrust out of mind." Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 208 (1987).
Consequently, "with regard to inferential incrimination[,] the judge's
instruction may well be successful in dissuading the jury from entering onto
A-5096-14T1
18
the path of inference in the first place, so that there is no incrimination to
forget." Ibid. Likewise, in Harvey, 151 N.J. at 205-06, the Court held that a
curative instruction was sufficient to avoid a mistrial where the stricken
testimony pertained to polygraph results of an earlier suspect, and there was
substantial evidence to eliminate that suspect, rendering the prejudice to
defendant "minimal." The Court emphasized that the evidence that the earlier
suspect passed a polygraph did not directly prove defendant's guilt. Id. at 205.
Second, an instruction's timing and substance affect its likelihood of
success. As for timing, our Court has held that a swift and firm instruction is
better than a delayed one. Winter, 96 N.J. at 648 (noting the importance of an
immediate and firm instruction to disregard an offending remark); see also
Vallejo, 198 N.J. at 134-35 (citing cases finding effective curative
instructions). Delay may allow prejudicial evidence to become cemented into
a storyline the jurors create in their minds during the course of the trial. See
Evidentiary Instructions at 422 n.52; see also id. at 451 (stating "[t]he timing
. . . of instructions [is] likely to matter"). That is why our Supreme Court has
stated – in the context of admitting evidence of other crimes under N.J.R.E.
404(b) – it is the "better practice" to give limiting instructions at the time the
evidence is presented and again in the final jury charge. State v. Blakney, 189
N.J. 88, 93 (2006). It is thought that repeating the instruction prevents the
A-5096-14T1
19
jurors from "indelibly brand[ing] the defendant as a bad person" and blinding
them from careful consideration of all the evidence in deliberations. Ibid.As for substance, a specific and explanatory instruction is often more
effective than a general, conclusory one. The "Court has consistently stressed
the importance of . . . specificity when trial judges provide curative
instructions to alleviate potential prejudice to a defendant from inadmissible
evidence that has seeped into a trial." Vallejo, 198 N.J. at 135. "[B]ecause
'the inherently prejudicial nature of [404(b)] evidence casts doubt on a jury's
ability to follow even the most precise limiting instruction,' the court's
instruction 'should be formulated carefully to explain precisely the permitted
and prohibited purposes of the evidence . . . .'" State v. Fortin, 162 N.J. 517,
534 (2000) (quoting State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 309, 304 (1989)); see also
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328, 341 (1992).
An instruction also can be more effective when it explains itself.
"Because I said so" is likely to be even less effective from a judge to a jury
than it is from a parent to an eight-year-old. See Evidentiary Instructions at
439 (stating, based on a review of empirical research, that instructions "work
better when the judge gives the jury a reason to follow them"); id. at 452(noting, subject to exception, that "[o]n the whole, mock jury studies do
A-5096-14T1
20
suggest that evidentiary instructions are more apt to be followed if the judge
explains the reason for the underlying rule"). 4
Although trial judges may understandably try to avoid repeating and
thereby reinforcing an offending remark, a court must describe it with enough
specificity to enable the jury to follow the instruction. The instruction must be
"clear enough [and] sharp enough to achieve its goal." Vallejo, 198 N.J. at
136-37 (holding that an "instruction did not fulfill its purpose" where judge
referred too generally to "things . . . blurted out that have nothing to do with
this case").
Third, a court must ultimately consider its tolerance for the risk of
imperfect compliance. See Bruton, 391 U.S. at 135 (referring to
"consequences of failure so vital to" a criminal defendant). Yet, even in
criminal cases involving errors of constitutional dimension, "not 'any'
4
Some of our evidence rules, such as those pertaining to hearsay, are designed
to exclude inherently unreliable evidence. N.J.R.E. 802; State v. White, 158
N.J. 230, 238 (1999). Others, such as privileges, exclude probative evidence
in service of other policy goals. See State v. Briley, 53 N.J. 498, 505-06
(1969). This difference may affect compliance with a curative instruction. For
example, a judge could explain in detail why our system excludes an
incriminatory patient-to-physician statement – to encourage candor and protect
privacy in the health-care relationship. See Snyder v. Mekhjian, 125 N.J. 328,
337 (1991). However, inasmuch as that explanation does not pertain to the
evidence's probative value, it may be less successful in persuading a jury to
disregard it, than, say, an explanation as to why a hearsay statement is
inherently unreliable and should be disregarded.
A-5096-14T1
21
possibility [of an unjust result] can be enough for a rerun of the trial." Winter,
96 N.J. at 647 (quoting State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971)). "The
possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to
whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached."
Ibid. (quoting Macon, 57 N.J. at 336). By contrast, a non-constitutional error
"shall be disregarded by the appellate court 'unless it is of a nature as to have
been clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Id. at 648 (quoting State
v. LaPorte, 62 N.J. 312, 318-19 (1973)).
The United States Supreme Court has required an "overwhelming
probability" that the jury cannot comply, in order to conclude a curative
instruction was inadequate. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 766 n.8 (1987)
("We normally presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard
inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an
'overwhelming probability' that the jury will be unable to follow the court's
instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be
'devastating' to the defendant." (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208; then citing
Bruton, 391 U.S. at 136)). We note that our own Supreme Court has not
expressly adopted the "overwhelming probability" standard.
A-5096-14T1
22
C.
Applying these principles, we are constrained to conclude that the court's
instructions did not cure the prejudicial impact of the detective's inadmissible
statements that defendant was a gang member and the homicide occurred in a
gang area. We reach this conclusion in large part because the judge's
instructions missed the mark. It is one thing to assume jury compliance with a
well-crafted curative or limiting instruction. It is quite another to assume
compliance with an instruction that fails to clearly and sharply address the
prejudicial aspect of the inadmissible evidence. An instruction can be curative
only if the judicial medicine suits the ailment.
The detective's gang references were prejudicial. They may not be
minimized as "fleeting comments" that likely escaped the jury's notice. Cf.
Jackowitz v. Lang, 408 N.J. Super. 495, 505 (App. Div. 2009) ("Fleeting
comments, even if improper, may not warrant a new trial, particularly when
the verdict is fair."). Each time the detective referred to gangs, the trial came
to an abrupt halt. The second time, when the detective called defendant a gang
member, the jury gasped, according to defense counsel at sidebar. The
assistant prosecutor contended the gasp followed his own loud reaction to the
detective's statement. Either way, the detective's comment was not missed.
A-5096-14T1
23
The comments filled a hole in the State's case: defendant's motive for
killing Claudio. The State argued that defendant was retaliating for the beating
he received a week earlier. But, that theory had a problem. The target was not
the person who did the beating. Inserting the gang element provided a reason
for the killing. The jury could conclude that the homicide arose out of a gang
conflict involving both Claudio and Torres.
The second comment was particularly prejudicial because it directly
tarred defendant as a gang member. In holding that evidence of gang
membership was properly analyzed under N.J.R.E. 404(b) as evidence of other
crimes and wrongs, we observed that "membership in a street gang . . . is at the
very least strongly suggestive of" criminal activity. Goodman, 415 N.J. Super.
at 227. A "mere . . . allegation[] of gang membership carries a strong taint of
criminality." Ibid. (quoting United States v. Acosta, 110 F. Supp. 2d 918, 931
(E.D. Wis. 2000)). Evidence of past criminality risks conviction because the
jury may conclude defendant is a bad person with a propensity to commit
crimes. State v. Skinner, 218 N.J. 496, 514 (2014); State v. Rose, 206 N.J.
141, 180 (2011) (citing United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233, 248-49 (3d Cir.
2010)). "There is widespread agreement that other-crime evidence has a
unique tendency to turn a jury against the defendant. 'The likelihood of
prejudice is acute when the proffered evidence is proof of a defendant's
A-5096-14T1
24
uncharged misconduct.'" Stevens, 115 N.J. at 302 (quoting Edward J.
Imwinkelried, The Need to Amend Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b): The
Threat to the Future of the Federal Rules of Evidence, 30 Vill. L. Rev. 1465,
1487 (1985)).
The judge's instructions following the gang references missed the target.
In response to Crawley's first mention of gangs, the court did not address the
issue at all. Rather, the judge focused on the fact that Crawley was speculating
about why teenagers did not, or would not, want to cooperate. So, the jury was
free to use the testimony that gangs were rampant in the area for another
purpose: that the crime charged was somehow related to gangs.
The judge's instruction following the second mention only partly
addressed the prejudice of Crawley's comment that defendant was a gang
member. The judge said, "[T]here's no information in this case whatsoever
there's any gangs involved in this case." First, this statement was inaccurate,
because the detective testified both that the playground was a gang area –
which the court did not strike – and that defendant, a gang member, was
involved. Also, the court's assertion that there was "no information in this
case" about gang involvement did not contradict the truth of the detective's
statement.
A-5096-14T1
25
At best, the jury could understand the judge's statement to mean there
was no evidence that a gang had ordered the homicide or the homicide arose
out of a gang rivalry. But the judge's statement did not directly address
defendant's membership, which conveyed the taint of criminality and
propensity to commit crimes. 5 Further, the court's direction that the jury not
consider the "gang situation" suffered from vagueness.
The judge also asserted, as a fact, that Detective Crawley's statement
about defendant was "unintentional." But the court's fact-finding lacked
evidence in the record. 6 It was also inappropriate, because it bolstered the
detective's credibility in the juror's minds. The jury was more likely to
consider the statement to be true because it was unintentional.7
5
In other words, even if the instructions effectively removed the shadow of
gang involvement from the homicide, it did not remove it from the defendant
himself. To illustrate, if a defendant were charged with domestic violence
against his girlfriend, mentioning the defendant's involvement in a gang –
though totally unrelated to the alleged violence – would still prejudice the
defendant. It would convey to the jury that he was a bad person who regularly
engaged in acts of criminality and violence – that is, a person capable and
prone to commit the crime charged.
6
If anything, the record would have supported the opposite conclusion, given
the prosecutor's statement that he expressly warned each witness to avoid the
subject of gangs, and the detective's reference to defendant's alleged gang
membership was his second misstep.
7
To increase the likelihood the jurors would actually disregard the detective's
statement, the judge could have explained that giving it weight would disserve
(continued)
A-5096-14T1
26
(continued)
the fact-finding function, and would unfairly prejudice their view of defendant.
To further guard against misuse, the court should have provided a warning
akin to that accompanying admissible Rule 404(b) evidence. For example, the
judge could have stated:
Ladies and gentlemen, you just heard Detective
Crawley mention that defendant is a member of a
gang. I am striking that statement, and direct you to
disregard it and give it no weight whatsoever. Let me
explain why.
First, the statement is unsupported by any evidence in
this case. Regardless of whether the detective actually
believes what he says, his statement may be based on
hearsay, or rumor, or mistaken information. It would
be unfair to defendant, and wrong for you to credit the
detective's statement without proof, without evidence.
Without proof, it is nothing more than an allegation.
You are obliged to make fact-findings based not on
allegations, but on the evidence presented in this
courtroom, and only that evidence, in accord with the
instructions I give you. There has been, and will be
no evidence that gangs were involved in this
homicide, or defendant is himself a gang member.
The detective's statement by itself is not evidence.
Second, because we knew in advance that there would
be no evidence in this trial to support the detective's
statement, the detective was directed not to mention
gangs. He did so anyway, in violation of my
direction. You should disregard his statement.
Third, you must not conclude, based on the detective's
unsupported statement, that defendant is a bad person,
or that he was more likely to commit the crimes
charged based on the detective's characterization of
(continued)
A-5096-14T1
27
As a result of these deficiencies, the risk of the jury's non-compliance
with the court's instructions was intolerably high. The State's case was far
from overwhelming, as it depended on the often-inconsistent testimony of two
eyewitnesses. The trial judge recognized, in the course of one side-bar
discussion, that this was a "very close case." And in the colloquy after
Crawley's second gang reference, specifically alleging defendant was a gang
member, the judge stated that if there were further errors, the State would be
"bordering on a mistrial."
The question before us is not whether comprehensive and well-targeted
instructions could have cured the taint of the inadmissible references to gangs
(continued)
him. The statement is unsupported and should be
given no weight.
While I am on the subject, I also direct you to
disregard and give no weight to the detective's
statement that the neighborhood near the school is a
"high gang area." The detective provided no evidence
to support that statement. That statement also violated
my direction that unsupported statements about gangs
were prohibited. It would be unfair and wrong for you
to conclude that the alleged presence of gangs in the
area provided a reason for the homicide, or supported
a finding that defendant committed it.
To repeat, the statements regarding gangs are
unsupported; it would be unfair and wrong if you gave
them any weight; and I direct you to disregard them.
A-5096-14T1
28
and to defendant's gang membership. The instructions did not fully and clearly
address the prejudicial aspects of the testimony.
Therefore, we conclude that the gang references caused substantial
prejudice, which the judge's instructions did not cure. On this basis, we are
constrained to reverse the conviction. Given our conclusion on this point, we
need not address in this opinion whether the court erred in its instructions on
the subject of the eyewitnesses' use of pseudonyms and expressions of fear. 8
As for the other issues raised on appeal in the counseled and pro se
briefs challenging the conviction, we find they lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add that Crawley's explanation for the
differences in the eyewitnesses' description would have been inappropriate
opinion testimony; but defense counsel opened the door to the subject by
challenging Crawley's reasons for obtaining an arrest warrant despite the
differences.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial. We do not retain jurisdiction.
8
However, Judge Ostrer comments on this subject in an unpublished
concurrence.
A-5096-14T1
29
___________________________________
OSTRER, J.A.D., concurring.
The gang references provide a sufficient basis for reversal. I write
separately because I believe the prejudice from the gang references was
compounded by the repeated references to Arce and Maldonado as "Jane Doe";
and Arce's testimony that she delayed speaking to police and used a
pseudonym because she feared retaliation against her and her family. When
supported by competent evidence, attempts to tamper or intimidate a witness
may well establish a consciousness of guilt that is probative of the underlying
charges. Goodman, 415 N.J. Super. at 232. Although the State presented no
evidence that defendant did anything to intimidate either witness, the use of
pseudonyms and testimony about fear created the risk that the jury would find
that such intimidation occurred here.
The timing and specificity of the judge's instructions were also ill-suited
to the prejudice created. As a matter of timing, the judge refused to provide
any instruction in response to the use of "Jane Doe" or Arce's expression of
fear while Arce and Maldonado testified. Only after the two eyewitnesses
were off the stand, in the midst of the curative instruction prompted by
Crawley's second gang reference, did the judge add an instruction about the
use of pseudonyms. The judge himself conceded that perhaps he should have
addressed the issue earlier. By that time, jurors may have cemented in their
minds the ideas that (1) defendant did something to cause fear and to prompt
the eyewitnesses to seek anonymity; and (2) defendant acted that way because
he was conscious of his guilt.
The judge's instruction was also poorly focused. The judge said the
eyewitnesses simply "wanted to keep their identity private," but then seemed
to attribute the use of pseudonyms to police procedure, stating "the Jane Doe
situation is routine police work repeatedly in these kind of cases, it's just done
that way." The judge did not address the reasons why the witnesses wanted
anonymity. Arce said she was afraid. An officer testified he heard she was
afraid of retaliation.
Nor did the judge explain why police routinely gave witnesses
pseudonyms. The factual basis for the court's statement is unclear, as the
police officers who presented the photo arrays to Arce and Maldonado did not
testify that the use of pseudonyms was "routine." Most importantly, the judge
did not instruct the jury that there was no evidence that defendant had
intimidated or tampered with the witnesses, and they should not use the
evidence of the witnesses' desire for anonymity, and any fear they experienced,
as evidence of defendant's consciousness of guilt.
A-5096-14T1
2
The repeated use of the pseudonyms, and the references to fear of
retaliation, provided indirect support for the statements that defendant
belonged to a gang, and gangs were present in the area. Jurors did not need to
hear from an expert to know that gang members might intimidate those who
assist the police against them.
Once the court permitted the testimony that Arce delayed going to police
out of fear and both witnesses utilized pseudonyms, it was incumbent upon the
court to limit the use of such testimony, by instructing the jury that there was
no evidence that defendant had intimidated or threatened them. The court's
omission provides additional grounds for granting defendant a new t rial.
A-5096-14T1
3