STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ELELAKE J. JEFFERSON, JR. (17-06-1551, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5593-16T1
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    ELELAKE J. JEFFERSON, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ____________________________
    Argued November 8, 2018 – Decided December 17, 2018
    Before Judges Fuentes and Vernoia.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 17-06-1551.
    Richard H. Kotkin argued the cause for appellant.
    Matthew E. Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney
    General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
    for respondent (Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex
    County Prosecutor, attorney; Kayla E. Rowe, Special
    Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor,
    of counsel and on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Defendant Elelake J. Jefferson, Jr., appeals from a judgment of conviction,
    entered after a bench trial, finding him guilty of the disorderly persons offense
    of obstructing administration of law or other governmental function in violation
    of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a). Based on our review of the record, we find there is
    insufficient evidence supporting the conviction, and reverse.
    Defendant was charged in an indictment with fourth-degree obstruction of
    the administration of law or other governmental function, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a)
    (count one), third-degree possession of a stolen handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7(a)
    (count two), fourth-degree possession of a defaced firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(d)
    (count three), and second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A.
    2C:39-5(b)(1) (count four). Defendant's trial took place over three days.
    The evidence showed that on January 22, 2016, officers from the South
    Orange and Montclair police departments investigated an incident in South
    Orange that involved a motor vehicle. 1 At approximately 3:00 a.m., officers
    went to the Montclair home defendant shared with his parents in search of the
    vehicle, but it was not present in the driveway or street. A few hours later,
    1
    The trial record does not include any details concerning the nature or type of
    the incident. The record reflects that the court made a pretrial ruling excluding
    evidence at trial concerning the incident under investigation.
    A-5593-16T1
    2
    Montclair police officers observed the vehicle in the driveway of defendant 's
    home.
    At approximately 7:00 a.m., South Orange Detectives Brian McGuire and
    Ernesto Morillo went to the home, where they met Montclair Detectives Joe
    Anderson and Pierre Falaise and other officers. The home was "recessed from
    the street." In a conversation that "was not particularly loud," officers were
    instructed to secure the rear of the house to ensure that no one left the house
    when the detectives approached its front door.
    The detectives knocked on the front door, and defendant's father, Elelake
    Jefferson Sr., answered. Detective Falaise told Jefferson Sr. that the detectives
    "were looking to speak with his son." It was cold outside, and the detectives
    asked if they could enter the home. Jefferson Sr. allowed the detectives to enter,
    where they stood in the foyer and spoke with him.
    Detective Falaise testified defendant's bedroom was located off of the
    hallway that extended directly from the foyer into the home. Detective Morillo
    explained that Jefferson Sr. said he believed defendant was home because the
    bed in the room was unmade, a space heater next to the bed was on and
    defendant's keys were in the room. According to Detective Falaise, defendant
    A-5593-16T1
    3
    did not leave the bedroom or traverse the hallway and enter the basement door
    while the detectives were in the home.
    As the detectives stood with Jefferson Sr. in the hallway, there was a noise
    "like something falling, maybe metal, something metal hitting the ground, like
    a crash." Detective Falaise asked Jefferson Sr. if anyone else was in the house,
    and Jefferson Sr. said "it might be" defendant. According to Detective Falaise,
    he asked Jefferson Sr. if they could "check to see if it was" defendant
    "downstairs" where "[i]t sounded like [the noise] was coming from." Detective
    Falaise testified Jefferson Sr. led him and Detective Anderson down the hallway
    to the basement door.
    As Detectives Falaise and Anderson went into the basement, they said,
    "Montclair Police. Is there anyone down here?" They made the statement "to
    announce [themselves] so people know that [they're] coming down," because
    Detective Falaise did not "want to get injured, [because] people think [they're]
    somebody else."
    At the foot of the basement stairs is a "big room." Detective Falaise
    walked through the room and through a doorway into another room, but did not
    see defendant. He walked through another open doorway into a storage area or
    closet and saw defendant standing against the wall. Detective Falaise told
    A-5593-16T1
    4
    defendant to exit the storage area, and defendant complied. The detectives did
    not place defendant under arrest, but they handcuffed him for their safety and
    brought him upstairs. Detective Falaise testified defendant was cooperative and
    never ran away, fled, impeded or intimidated the detectives or employed any
    physical force or violence against them.
    The vehicle was towed to the South Orange Police Department. A search
    warrant was issued for the vehicle. During a subsequent search, Detective
    Morillo recovered a handgun from the spare tire compartment of the trunk.
    At the close of the State's case, the court dismissed the three weapons
    charges. The court determined the State failed to present sufficient evidence
    permitting a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
    possessed the handgun that was found in the vehicle. See State v. Reyes, 
    50 N.J. 454
    , 458-59 (1967). The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the
    obstruction charge alleged in count one.
    Jefferson Sr. testified as a defense witness. He explained that he permitted
    the detectives to enter his home because it was "freezing outside." He asked the
    detectives to remain in the foyer and never granted them permission to enter the
    basement.   Jefferson Sr. said he first went into the basement to look for
    A-5593-16T1
    5
    defendant because the detectives wanted to speak with him.            He told the
    detectives he did not find defendant and that defendant was not home.
    In her decision from the bench, the judge found defendant did not go into
    the basement after the detectives entered the home. Instead, the judge found
    "defendant may have heard the police and gone downstairs" before the
    detectives entered the home.
    The judge further found that the detectives "yell[ed]" downstairs,
    "Montclair Police. Is there anyone down here?" The judge found the basement
    door was open and "assum[ed]" that if the detectives and Jefferson Sr. had been
    talking upstairs, that "voices carry."
    The court found that it appeared defendant "would have heard some
    conversation" either while he was "in the basement or prior to the . . . detectives
    coming into . . . the house." The court observed that it did not know "what was
    in [defendant's] mind," but found he "chose to go down [into] the basement and
    chose to secrete himself in the closet." The court further found that "as soon as
    the officer called [defendant], he came out."
    Based on those findings, the court concluded "there is an impairment on
    [defendant's] part to obstruct" the detective's effort to question him. The court
    found defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of disorderly persons
    A-5593-16T1
    6
    obstruction under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1. Defendant, who spent 523 days in custody
    awaiting trial, was sentenced to time served and the payment of fines and
    penalties. This appeal followed.
    On appeal, defendant makes the following arguments:
    Point I
    The Police Officers Lacked Probable Cause To Search
    Through-Out The Home Of The Appellant, Elelake
    Jefferson, Jr.
    Point II
    The State Did Not Prove The Appellant, Elelake
    Jefferson, Jr., Obstructed The Administration Of Law
    Or Other Governmental Function Beyond A
    Reasonable Doubt.
    Our review of a judge's verdict following a bench trial is limited. State v.
    Miller, 
    449 N.J. Super. 460
    , 472 (App. Div. 2017), certif. granted, 
    234 N.J. 1
    (2018). "The standard is not whether the verdict [is] against the weight of the
    evidence, but rather 'whether there is sufficient credible evidence in the record
    to support the judge's determination.'" 
    Ibid.
     (quoting State ex rel. R.V., 
    280 N.J. Super. 118
    , 121 (App. Div. 1995)).
    We defer to the judge's findings of fact "which are substantially influenced
    by [the] opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the
    case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy," State v. Locurto, 
    157 N.J. 463
    , 471
    A-5593-16T1
    7
    (1999) (quoting State v. Johnson, 
    42 N.J. 146
    , 161 (1964)), and "do not disturb
    the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are
    convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the
    competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests
    of justice," Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 
    65 N.J. 474
    , 484
    (1974) (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 
    78 N.J. Super. 154
    , 155 (App.
    Div. 1963)). A reviewing court, however, owes no deference to the trial court
    in deciding matters of law. State v. Gandhi, 
    201 N.J. 161
    , 176 (2010).
    The court found defendant guilty of violating N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a), which
    provides that a person commits an offense:
    if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the
    administration of law or other governmental function or
    prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from
    lawfully performing an official function by means of
    flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical
    interference or obstacle, or by means of any
    independently unlawful act. This section does not
    apply to failure to perform a legal duty other than an
    official duty, or any other means of avoiding
    compliance with law without affirmative interference
    with governmental functions.
    [N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) (emphasis added).]
    "[N]ot just any interference with the administration of law constitutes the
    criminal act of obstruction." State v. Camillo, 
    382 N.J. Super. 113
    , 118 (App.
    A-5593-16T1
    8
    Div. 2005). "Simply obstructing, impairing or perverting the administration of
    law or the governmental function" does not violate N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a). 
    Ibid.
    The statute prohibits only "(1) violent or physical interference, [or] (2) other
    acts which are 'unlawful' independently of the purpose to obstruct the
    government." Id. at 117 (quoting Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law
    Revision Commission, Vol. II, 1971, at 280). To support a conviction under
    N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a), the State must prove that the obstruction is "carried out in
    a manner described in the statute: 'by means of flight, intimidation, force,
    violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently
    unlawful act.'" Ibid. (emphasis added) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a)).
    Here, there is no evidence defendant engaged in any acts of intimidation,
    used force or violence, physically interfered with the detectives or committed
    any independent unlawful act.     To the contrary, Detective Falaise testified
    defendant was cooperative and not violent, and acknowledged defendant did not
    use force or violence and did not engage in any unlawful acts or acts of
    intimidation. According to Detective Falaise, defendant was given a single
    directive, to exit the storage area, and he immediately complied. Cf. State v.
    Reece, 
    222 N.J. 154
    , 172 (2015) (upholding obstruction conviction where the
    defendant attempted to close a door on officers as they entered to "perform an
    A-5593-16T1
    9
    official function under the emergency-aid doctrine"); State v. Williams, 
    192 N.J. 1
    , 11 (2007) (holding the defendant violated N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) by fleeing after
    being ordered by the police "to place his hands on his head for a pat-down
    search"); State v. Crawley, 
    187 N.J. 440
    , 460 (2006) (holding defendant violated
    N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) by fleeing after an officer ordered the defendant to stop for
    questioning).
    The court did not expressly identify a physical action encompassed by
    N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) that supports defendant's conviction.          However, a fair
    reading of the court's decision reflects that the court determined defendant
    committed the offense by "prevent[ing] or attempt[ing] to prevent a public
    servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight."
    N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) (emphasis added).         The court's verdict is based on its
    limited finding that defendant "would have heard some conversation, either
    [while] in the basement or prior to the . . . detectives coming . . . into the house"
    and "chose to go down [in] the basement and . . . secrete himself in the closet."2
    The court's findings are not supported by substantial credible evidence.
    2
    The court also stated "if there was nothing to flee from there would be nothing
    to flee," but did not explain the relevance of this vague observation to its fact -
    findings or legal conclusion that defendant violated N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a).
    A-5593-16T1
    10
    There is no evidence defendant "chose to go down [in] the basement" after
    the detectives entered the home or after he purportedly heard Jefferson Sr.
    speaking to the detectives in the foyer. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence
    shows defendant was in the basement before Jefferson Sr. allowed the detectives
    to enter the home. The detectives testified the basement door is located in the
    hallway adjacent to the foyer where they stood speaking to Jefferson Sr., and
    Detective Falaise testified defendant was not seen in the hallway going into the
    basement.
    The court's determination defendant committed obstruction by flight is
    also based on its finding defendant "would have heard some conversation . . .
    prior to the . . . detectives coming into . . . the house."3 The court's finding
    defendant "would have heard" the detectives speaking outside of the home
    before they entered is unsupported by any evidence. The record is bereft of
    evidence the detectives had a conversation while outside defendant's home
    during which anyone said defendant's name or that they were present to
    administer a law or perform a government function related to defendant.
    Moreover, there is no evidence defendant was present for any conversation the
    3
    In a similarly equivocal finding, the court stated, "I think [defendant] may
    have heard the police and gone downstairs."
    A-5593-16T1
    11
    detectives had while outside or otherwise could hear such a conversation from
    the confines of his home. The lack of evidentiary support for the court's finding
    defendant prevented or attempted to prevent the detectives from lawfully
    performing an official function by means of purported flight into the basement
    requires a reversal of his conviction.4 See N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a).
    The record also does not support the court's conclusion that defendant
    violated N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) by remaining in the basement after the detectives
    entered the home. The detectives did not have a warrant for defendant's arrest
    and did no more than advise Jefferson Sr. that they wanted to speak with
    defendant. Even assuming, as the court did, that defendant might have heard
    the detectives tell Jefferson Sr. that they wanted to speak with him, defendant
    was under no obligation to speak to the police or make himself available in his
    own home to answer the detectives' questions. Under such circumstances,
    defendant's decision to remain in the basement after the detectives expressed an
    interest in speaking with him neither constituted flight nor any other physical
    4
    We do not suggest the court would have been correct in finding defendant
    committed an offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) if the evidence showed
    defendant went into the basement in response to hearing a conversation among
    detectives while they were outside of his home. We need not decide the issue
    because, as noted, there is no evidence there was such a conversation, defendant
    heard such a conversation or that defendant went into the basement in response
    to such a conversation.
    A-5593-16T1
    12
    action obstructing the administration of law or any other government function.
    See Camillo, 382 N.J. Super. at 118 (holding the defendant did not commit the
    offense of obstruction under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) by refusing to supply
    information required by a state trooper to complete a report). The court erred
    by finding otherwise.
    Defendant also argues his conviction should be reversed because he was
    discovered in the basement as the result of an unlawful, warrantless search of
    his home. Given our reversal of defendant's conviction on other grounds, it is
    unnecessary to address the contention.
    Reversed.
    A-5593-16T1
    13