STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALEX TORRES STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. OSVALDO CORREA-MARTINEZ (17-01-0045, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2765-18
A-2860-18
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ALEX TORRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
OSVALDO CORREA-MARTINEZ,
a/k/a OSBALDO CORRERA,
MANUEL MARTINEZ,
OSVALDO CORREA,
OSVALDO CORREAMARTINEZ,
and OSVALDO MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Argued (A-2765-18) and Submitted (A-2860-18)
December 7, 2021 – Decided January 27, 2022
Before Judges Messano and Rose.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 17-01-0045.
Margaret McLane, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,
argued the cause for appellant Alex Torres (Joseph E.
Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Margaret McLane,
of counsel and on the briefs).
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant Osvaldo Correa-Martinez (John Douard,
Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on
the brief).
Mark Niedziela, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
for respondent (Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County
Prosecutor, attorney; Mark Niedziela, of counsel and on
the briefs).
Appellant Osvaldo Correa-Martinez filed a pro se
supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
These appeals arise from the joint trial of defendants Alex Torres and
Osvaldo Correa-Martinez. We calendared the appeals back-to-back and now
consolidate them to issue a single opinion.
A Passaic County grand jury indicted both men for third-degree
possession of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a) (count one); third-degree
distribution of heroin, and third-degree possession of heroin with intent to
A-2765-18
2
distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) (counts two and four); third-degree
distribution, and third-degree possession with intent to distribute heroin in a
school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (counts three and five); three counts of second-
degree unlawful possession of a handgun, one count for each of three firearms,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1) (counts six, seven, and eight); three counts of second-
degree possession of a handgun in the course of committing a drug crime,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4.1(a) (counts nine, ten, and eleven); three counts of third-
degree receiving stolen property, i.e., the three handguns, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7
(counts twelve, thirteen, and fourteen); fourth-degree possession of a large
capacity magazine, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(j) (count fifteen); and fourth-degree
possession of hollow-point bullets, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)(1) (count sixteen).
Correa-Martinez was also indicted for possession of a handgun having
previously been convicted of certain crimes, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1) (count
eighteen).1
1
The indictment also included a single count against Blady O. Diaz, charging
him with possession of heroin. The State alleged that Diaz bought heroin from
defendants, and that sale was the subject of counts two and three of the
indictment. Diaz was not tried with defendants, and the record does not reveal
any disposition of the single charge against him.
A-2765-18
3
Defendants were tried before a jury after their motions to suppress were
denied. The jury convicted both defendants of unlawful possession of one
handgun, a 9mm. Luger; possession of stolen property, the Luger; and
possession of a large capacity magazine; it also convicted Torres of possessing
hollow-nosed bullets, but acquitted Correa-Martinez of that charge. The jury
acquitted both defendants of all other counts of the indictment. 2
After denying defendants' post-verdict motions, the judge sentenced
Torres to seven years' imprisonment with a forty-two-month parole disqualifier
pursuant to the Graves Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(g), for the handgun conviction,
and imposed consecutive sentences of four years' imprisonment for receiving
stolen property, nine months' imprisonment for the large capacity magazine and
nine months' imprisonment for the hollow-point ammunition conviction, for an
aggregate sentence of twelve and one-half years' imprisonment with forty-two-
months of parole ineligibility.
The judge sentenced Correa-Martinez to an eight-year term of
imprisonment on the handgun conviction with a forty-two-month period of
parole ineligibility, and consecutive terms of four-years on the stolen property
2
After the jury returned its verdict, the State dismissed the certain persons count
against Correa-Martinez.
A-2765-18
4
conviction and twelve months on the extended magazine conviction, for an
aggregate sentence of thirteen years' imprisonment with forty-two-months of
parole ineligibility.
Torres raises the following points for our consideration:
POINT I
THE COURT IMPROPERLY INTERFERED IN
DELIBERATIONS AND COERCED A VERDICT
WHEN IT FAILED TO ADDRESS TWO JURORS'
SCHEDULING CONCERNS AND REQUIRED ALL
JURORS TO INDIVIDUALLY REAFFIRM THAT
THEY WOULD NOT LET ANY TIME
CONSTRAINTS INFLUENCE THEIR VERDICT.
(Not Raised Below)
POINT II
THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF THE LEAD
DETECTIVE'S OPINION TESTIMONY ABOUT
NARCOTICS TRANSACTIONS AND CRIME "HOT
SPOTS" REQUIRES REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT'S
CONVICTIONS.
POINT III
THE INFORMATION FROM THE NCIC 3 RECORDS
WAS INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY.
3
This is an acronym for the National Crime Information Center. See State v.
McGee, 131 N.J. Super. 292, 295 n.1 (App. Div. 1974):
N.C.I.C. is a government agency which, among
other functions, receives reports from police authorities
A-2765-18
5
ITS ERRONEOUS ADMISSION REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF THE RECEIVING STOLEN
PROPERTY CHARGE. (Not Raised Below)
POINT IV
THE COURT'S IMPROPER FINDING AND
WEIGHING OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND
FAILURE TO CONDUCT ANY YARBOUGH4
ANALYSIS RENDERS DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE
EXCESSIVE.
Correa-Martinez raises the following points:
POINT I
[SERGEANT] JUDEH LACKED REASONABLE,
ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO JUSTIFY
OPENING THE PASSENGER DOOR AND
REMOVING CORREA-MARTINEZ, AND THEN
ENGAGING IN A SEARCH.
POINT II
THE JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY
FAILING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE
STANDARD OF PROOF OF A PERMISSIVE
throughout the entire country concerning stolen guns.
The information received is fed into a computer. Upon
receipt of inquiries concerning stolen guns from police
authorities, the computer will emit a printout which
indicates whether a given gun has been reported as
stolen, a description of the gun, the date allegedly
stolen and the name of the police agency which made
the initial report of the theft.
4
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985).
A-2765-18
6
INFERENCE AND THE BEYOND-A-
REASONABLE-DOUBT STANDARD OF PROOF OF
AN ELEMENT OF A CRIME[] BY INSTRUCTING
THAT THE JURORS COULD FIND
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF THE
HANDGUN IF THEY INFERRED THAT
POSSESSION WAS "MORE PROBABLE THAN
NOT." U.S. CONST. AMEND. XIV; N.J. CONST.
ART. I, PARA. 1. (Partially Raised Below)
POINT III
THE IMPROPER ADMISSION OF THE LEAD
DETECTIVE'S OPINION TESTIMONY ABOUT
NARCOTICS TRANSACTIONS AND CRIME "HOT
SPOTS" REQUIRES REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT'S
CONVICTIONS.5
POINT IV
THE COURT IMPROPERLY INTERFERED IN
DELIBERATIONS AND COERCED A VERDICT
WHEN IT FAILED TO ADDRESS TWO JURORS'
SCHEDULING CONCERNS AND REQUIRED ALL
JURORS TO INDIVIDUALLY REAFFIRM THAT
THEY WOULD NOT LET ANY TIME CONTRAINTS
INFLUENCE THEIR VERDICT. (Not Raised Below)
POINT V
THE INFORMATION FROM THE NCIC RECORDS
WAS INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY.
ITS ERRONEOUS ADMISSION REQUIRES
REVERSAL OF THE RECEIVING STOLEN
PROPERTY CHARGE. (Not Raised Below)
5
We eliminated the sub-points in defendant's brief.
A-2765-18
7
POINT VI
THE COURT'S IMPROPER FINDING AND
WEIGHING OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS AND
INCOHERENT YARBOUGH ANALYSIS RENDERS
DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE EXCESSIVE.
In a pro se supplemental brief, Correa-Martinez raises the following:
POINT ONE
TWO JURORS SPOKE TO SERGEANT JUD[E]H,
WHO WAS THE SECOND WITNESS FOR THE
STATE, OUTSIDE OF THE COURTOOM. THIS
WAS CONTRARY TO DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT'S FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS, RIGHT TO
CONFRONT WITNESSES, AND DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH,
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUION.
POINT TWO
AFTER FIVE DAYS OF DELIBERATION, THE
JURY RETURNED WITH AN INCONSISTENT
VERDICT WHEN THEY FOUND DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT'S CODEFENDANT . . . GUILTY ON
COUNTS EIGHT, FOURTEEN, FIFTEEN, AND
SIXTEEN — AND THEY ALSO FOUND
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT GUILTY OF COUNTS
EIGHT, FOURTEEN, FIFTEEN — BUT NOT
GUILTY ON COUNT SIXTEEN.
We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable
legal standards. We conclude the judge improperly admitted hearsay evidence
regarding information police obtained from an NCIC search, and that alone
A-2765-18
8
requires reversal of defendants' convictions for possessing a stolen firearm. We
also agree that the judge improperly admitted other significant, prejudicial
opinion and hearsay testimony, mostly over defense counsels' objections.
Although the jury acquitted defendants of all charges involving the heroin,
which was the focus of most of this inadmissible evidence, we conclude the
testimony was grossly prejudicial, infected the fairness of the trial, and was
clearly capable of bringing about an unjust result. R. 2:10-2. We therefore
reverse defendants' convictions and remand to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I.
We begin by focusing on the trial testimony of Paterson Police Detective
Wilson Lazu, who on the evening of June 14, 2016, was investigating a home
on Rosa Parks Boulevard along with other members of the Narcotics Division.
Lazu, the "lead detective," was surveilling the building from a minivan parked
across the street, while communicating by encrypted radio transmissions with
other members of the team situated elsewhere. Lazu was about forty feet away
from the "target location," but could see clearly because of a streetlight and
porchlights on neighboring houses.
The following occurred between the Prosecutor and Lazu early in the
A-2765-18
9
testimony:
Prosecutor: [I]f you could just describe that area to the
ladies and gentlemen of the jury?
Det. Lazu: It's a high crime area. It's residential. It has
some businesses on that street. It's known as one of the
hot spots in the city.
Prosecutor: Why is it called a hot spot?
Det. Lazu: Because of the crime and the
....
Det. Lazu: — high level of narcotics.
Lazu finished his answer over defense counsel's objection, but the judge then
called the attorneys to sidebar. Defense counsel explained that the testimony
was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. The prosecutor claimed the testimony
went "to why the [d]etective's in the area conducting surveillance." The judge
overruled the objection.
The prosecutor resumed questioning Lazu where he left off:
Prosecutor: Detective, once again, can you just explain
what a hot spot means?
Det. Lazu: A hot spot is normally where there's high
crime, previous shootings, high level of narcotics
investigations have been conducted in these areas. . . .
[T]here's many in the city and that's one of them. That
area is one on the list.
A-2765-18
10
[(Emphasis added).]
Shortly thereafter, the following exchange occurred:
Prosecutor: [W]hen you're making your observations,
when you first get there[,] what do you observe at the
location . . . ?
Det. Lazu: I observed several individuals . . . coming
in and out of the house within a short period of time
inspecting several items in their hands, which is the
common behavior of . . .
....
Det. Lazu: — buying drugs.
Lazu once again finished his answer over defense counsel's objection, which the
judge again overruled.
Lazu said he saw five such people, one of whom he "kind of identified
from a previous narcotics arrest." When the prosecutor again asked the detective
to explain the behavior of these people leaving the house, Lazu responded: "I
couldn't see what they were looking at, but they were looking at it and walking
at a fast pace. . . . That's the normal behavior of . . . ." Defense counsel again
objected, and the judge again overruled the objection. Lazu continued, stating
these people were "counting what I believe to be some sort of narcotics in their
hands." Lazu reached this conclusion through his "training and experience."
A-2765-18
11
After surveilling the house for approximately fifteen minutes, Lazu saw
defendants exit the house and go to a Honda parked in the driveway. Torres
carried a "dark object," about fourteen inches long, in both hands, and Lazu saw
him through the open car door place it under the driver's seat. Correa-Martinez
guided Torres as he backed the car out of the driveway, and then entered on the
passenger side.
Lazu saw a black SUV approach moments later and park behind the
Honda, which was double parked in the street. Blady Diaz exited the SUV and
approached the passenger side of the Honda. Lazu saw "an exchange" with
Correa-Martinez and "believe[d] . . . [i]t was an exchange of paper currency and
narcotics." Defense counsel objected; the judge sustained the objection but
suggested that the prosecutor "get into [Lazu's] training and experience."
The prosecutor then asked the detective a series of questions in that area,
and followed with, "based upon your training and experience[,] what did you
believe had just taken place?" The judge overruled defense counsel's objection,
and Lazu answered, "A narcotics transaction." Both cars drove off, and Lazu
radioed members of the backup units with their descriptions.
Other detectives apprehended defendants and Diaz. As lead detective,
Lazu testified that he knew monies were seized from defendants, however, he
A-2765-18
12
explained the absence of any reference to seized monies in police reports by
telling jurors, "[i]t was . . . insufficient funds." Lazu claimed it was police
practice not to confiscate money from arrestees if the total was less than $150.
He explained in that case, any money would become the personal property of a
defendant and returned to him.
Lazu said he was aware that guns were seized as part of the investigation,
and, as he began to explain the procedure following seizure of a gun, there was
an objection. Defense counsel said Lazu lacked personal knowledge because he
did not seize the weapons; counsel later withdrew the objection after the judge
overruled it at sidebar. Lazu explained police "check if [the guns are] stolen"
by "run[ning] them through NCIC." We quote completely the balance of Lazu's
testimony, the only testimony, regarding the NCIC inquiry.
Prosecutor: What's NCIC?
Det. Lazu: It's the [n]ational database to tell us if [the
guns are] stolen or not, what location and who the
owner is.
Prosecutor: [W]hat do you use, or what information do
you use to find out whether or not a weapon has been
reported stolen?
Det. Lazu: The description, model number and the
serial number.
A-2765-18
13
Prosecutor: Now, if you recall in this case were the
weapons recovered . . . run through NCIC?
Det. Lazu: Yes.
Prosecutor: And what were the results?
Det. Lazu: They were all three stolen.
Prosecutor: [D]o you recall where they were stolen
from?
Det. Lazu: One was from Los Angeles, California, the
other one was from Little Rock, Arkansas, and the third
was Atlanta, Georgia.
Lazu was vigorously cross-examined and admitted that a report he
prepared omitted any mention of observed narcotics transactions at the house or
that monies were confiscated from either defendant. At one point, Lazu said he
recalled Torres had some money on him when arrested but could not recall how
much. Correa-Martinez's counsel had Lazu identify a report indicating that
when Correa-Martinez was arrested, he had no money in his personal property.
Several other members of Lazu's team also testified. Detective Sergeants
Sal Judeh, Anthony DeGiglio, and Eric Montoya, detained defendants after they
had driven to a nearby gas station. Surveillance cameras captured most of the
A-2765-18
14
interaction; defense counsel secured the video footage and turned it over to the
State prior to trial. 6
Judeh drove to the gas station with the other two officers and parked his
SUV on an angle in front of defendants' Honda. He proceeded to the passenger
side and asked Correa-Martinez to exit the car, at which point he did a "pat
down" for his own safety. He told DeGiglio "to look in the car and . . . see if
there's anything on the floor of the car." The surveillance video shows both the
"pat down" of Correa-Martinez and DeGiglio leaning into the front of the car
from the passenger side utilizing a flashlight. Neither the pat down nor
DeGiglio's search of the Honda resulted in the seizure of any evidence.
However, Judeh said, "due to the matter at hand" he decided to slide into
the Honda from the passenger side to "see if there were any . . . weapons in the
car." Judeh saw a "large black handgun," a 9mm. Luger, with the "magazine
part" under the driver's seat and the "top part" visible on the floorboard. He told
the other two officers, who immediately placed handcuffs on defendants ; Judeh
gave the gun to DeGiglio.
The actual recovery of the gun is not visible in the video footage, a fact
the prosecutor acknowledged in summation. However, the video does show
6
The video recording is part of the appellate record.
A-2765-18
15
DeGiglio, standing next to the open driver's side door, leaning in while Judeh
leaned in from the passenger side, and DeGigilo emerging with a weapon.
DeGiglio later testified that he made the weapon safe by removing its extended
ammunition clip and a live round from its chamber. The video footage shows
these actions. Judeh said there were nineteen rounds of ammunition, including
some hollow nose bullets, in the magazine.
Detective Sergeant Montoya testified that as police arrived at the gas
station, he saw the Honda and defendant reaching down "kind of below his seat."
He told his fellow officers, "[H]e's reaching down[,] be careful." Montoya went
to the driver's side of the Honda and ordered Torres out of the car. He conducted
a pat down search, which can be seen in the video, but recovered "[n]othing of
evidence." After Montoya heard Judeh say "gun," he immediately placed Torres
under arrest in handcuffs.
Montoya said both defendants were brought to another police vehicle
commandeered by Sergeant Huntington, out of the field of view of the
surveillance camera, before conducting a further search of the Honda. Police
found no other evidence in the car. When Montoya returned to Huntington's
vehicle, they pulled Torres out of the car and searched him again because
Huntington claimed, "he's sitting funny." Montoya said they found a .380
A-2765-18
16
caliber handgun in Torres' pants, between his waist and "rectum area"; one of
the rounds in the gun was a hollow-nose bullet. Montoya also found "[seven]
heroin glassine folds" and a "brownish prescription bottle" in Torres' waistband.
The heroin bore a distinctive purple stamp, "Ferrari." None of this was captured
on the surveillance video.
The judge gave the next witness, Sergeant DeGiglio, a cautionary
instruction outside the presence of the jury before he was sworn.7 The judge
repeated a similar instruction when the last police witness, Detective Mohan
Singh, testified immediately after DeGiglio.
The way you will proceed in this case is the
State's only presenting evidence from the time, I guess
it was Lazu was at [the Rosa Parks Boulevard house]
and he made observations going forward. Anything
about what led up to him being there, anything that was
any anonymous tips or anything like that are not part of
this case.8
So if anybody asks you questions that you think
the answer might relay to what happened before[,] just
say you don't understand the question, all right? Don't
7
The record does not reveal why the judge choose to do this before the last two
police witnesses testified.
8
During his testimony at the evidentiary hearing on defendants' motion to
suppress, Lazu said he had received an anonymous tip from a "neighbor" of the
house on Rosa Parks Drive, complaining of drug sales out of the house by two
Hispanic men. The motion to suppress was heard by a different judge, not the
trial judge.
A-2765-18
17
give any information about what led up to what
happened.
DeGiglio said when the officers removed defendants from the Honda at the
gas station, he did a "cursory" search of "[j]ust the passenger areas of the
vehicle" and found nothing. After Judeh found the gun, DeGiglio handcuffed
Correa-Martinez, made the gun safe and walked Correa-Martinez to Sergeant
Huntington's car. He again searched Correa-Martinez and now found a small
.22 caliber handgun in the "left front change pocket" of defendant's pants.
DeGiglio did not seize any drugs or money from Correa-Martinez.
On Lazu's instructions, Detective Singh stopped Diaz's car after it left the
area of the surveillance and recovered three glassine envelopes of heroin from
Diaz; they bore a purple "Ferrari" ink stamp. New Jersey State Police Detective
Joshua Smith testified as a ballistics expert regarding the operability of the three
guns. After certain stipulations, the State rested.
Torres, who was forty-five-years old and had never been convicted of a
crime, testified. Torres admitted being at the house on Rosa Parks Boulevard,
where he rented a room he used to rendezvous with a paramour. He said Correa-
Martinez also rented a room at the house.
On the night in question, Torres, who worked as an auto mechanic, took
the Honda, a customer's vehicle, to get gas and cigarettes. He agreed to give
A-2765-18
18
Correa-Martinez a ride to also buy some cigarettes. Torres said that as he waited
in the car for the station attendant to pump the gas, Correa-Martinez entered the
market at the station and then returned to the vehicle. That was when Detectives
Judeh, Montoya and DeGiglio arrived and ordered them out of the car.
Torres denied placing a gun under the seat of the car. Over the State's
forceful objection, the judge permitted Torres to identify one photograph of the
footwell of the driver's side of the Honda to support his testimony that the space
between the seat and the floor was too narrow to secrete a weapon the size of
the Luger. Torres denied ever possessing any drugs or weapons or engaging in
any drug sales.
II.
A.
It was error to permit Lazu to testify about information obtained from
NCIC because it was inadmissible hearsay. "Hearsay" is "a statement that: (1)
the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the
statement." N.J.R.E. 801(c). Hearsay is inadmissible unless a recognized
hearsay exception applies. N.J.R.E. 802. "Testimony that the information was
received from a specific source such as NCIC, . . . violates the hearsay rule, and,
A-2765-18
19
moreover, 'violates the accused's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted by
witnesses against him.'" State v. Underwood, 286 N.J. Super. 129, 139 (App.
Div. 1995) (quoting State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263, 268–69 (1973)).
N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6) is an exception to the hearsay rule, and provides:
A statement contained in a writing or other record of
acts, events, conditions, and, subject to Rule 808,
opinions or diagnoses, made at or near the time of
observation by a person with actual knowledge or from
information supplied by such a person, if the writing or
other record was made in the regular course of business
and it was the regular practice of that business to make
such writing or other record.
In Underwood, we intimated that NCIC reports might be admissible under this
exception "as records of a regularly conducted business activity, if certain
criteria are met." 286 N.J. Super. at 139 (citing McGee, 131 N.J. Super. at 298).
Specifically, the State must establish:
(a) how and when the information furnished by the
owner . . . was passed . . . to the . . . police; (b) how and
who fed the information into the computer; (c) who
programmed the computer and how it was done; how
the data was retrieved from the computer; the accuracy
of those who operated the computer.
[McGee, 131 N.J. Super. at 298.]
A-2765-18
20
The State failed to carry its burden in Underwood, because "the NCIC
information came from an anonymous caller, [and] the State could not establish
who reported the car stolen." 286 N.J. Super. at 139.
The facts in McGee are similar to this case. There, the defendant's car
was stopped by a State Trooper who, with the defendant's consent, searched the
vehicle and found a gun under the driver's seat. 131 N.J. Super. at 295. Police
ran the weapon through NCIC and were "advised by someone at the N.C.I.C.
terminal that the gun found in defendant's car answered the description furnished
to it by the . . . [p]olice [d]epartment . . . , and that it had been stolen." Ibid. The
judge admitted the testimony over the defendant's objection, concluding it was
trustworthy and admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay
rule. Id. at 295–96.
The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of the weapon and
bringing a stolen gun into the State. Id. at 294. We concluded the NCIC
information was improperly admitted, the State having failed to establish the
criteria we cited above. Id. at 298. "Since the only proof presented to show that
the gun was stolen was improperly admitted, the conviction of [the] defendant
for bringing a stolen gun into the State must be reversed." Ibid. We also
reversed the defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of the gun,
A-2765-18
21
concluding, "the resulting prejudice had a strong tendency to spill over and taint
the verdict on the charge of possessing a gun without a permit. Any other
conclusion would be highly speculative and unwarranted under the
circumstances." Id. at 299.
The State's contention that Lazu's testimony supplied the necessary
predicates to admit the NCIC information is without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We acknowledge the State's
argument that defendants failed to object on hearsay grounds and later withdrew
any objection. However, the judge had already overruled defendants' objection
before the withdrawal.
Recently, in State v. Carrion, the Court considered whether "admission of
an affidavit attesting that a search of a State firearm registry revealed no lawful
permit for an individual's possession of a handgun" violated the defendant's
Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op. at
2). The Court concluded that "[s]uch raw data, collected for a neutral
administrative purpose, is not testimonial." Id. at 19. Nonetheless, "a witness
was required to explain the accuracy of the information entered into the database
search for the existence of a firearm permit issued to Carrion, but no such
witness was presented." Ibid. As noted, defense counsel objected to Lazu's lack
A-2765-18
22
of personal knowledge about how the NCIC information was obtained, and Lazu
provided no testimony regarding that issue except in the most general of terms.
Most importantly, neither Lazu nor any other witness supplied evidence
proving the Luger was stolen from a specific person in a specific state. The
answer we quoted above — the three guns were reported stolen from three states
— was the entirety of the State's evidence in support of the stolen property
charge. Therefore, the admission of any evidence regarding the NCIC
information was error clearly capable of producing an unjust result. R. 2:10-2.
B.
Both defendants argue that the judge permitted the State to introduce other
inadmissible hearsay and opinion testimony that was highly prejudicial and
denied them a fair trial. They cite Lazu's testimony that the location of the house
under surveillance was a "hot spot" of violent drug activity, his opinion that
people leaving the house had engaged in narcotics transactions, and that
defendants had sold drugs to Diaz in the street outside the house .
We begin by noting that Lazu did not testify as an expert witness. Even
though the judge sua sponte prompted the prosecutor to ask Lazu about his
training and experience after one of defense counsel's objections, the prosecutor
never sought to have Lazu qualified as an expert, the judge never recognized
A-2765-18
23
him as an expert, and the jury was never provided with instructions regarding
the evaluation of Lazu's testimony as expert opinion, as it was regarding the
testimony of the State's ballistics expert.
N.J.R.E. 701 permits a non-expert witness to offer "testimony in the form
of opinions" but "only . . . if it falls within the narrow bounds of testimony that
is based on the perception of the witness and that will assist the jury in
performing its function." State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438, 456 (2011). "[U]nlike
expert opinions, lay opinion testimony is limited to what was directly perceived
by the witness and may not rest on otherwise inadmissible hearsay." Id. at 460
(citing N.J.R.E. 703) (emphasis added).
In Trentacost v. Brussel, the plaintiff sued her landlord after she was
"mugged" in the unlocked common hallway of her apartment building. 164 N.J.
Super. 9, 12 (App. Div. 1978), aff'd, 82 N.J. 214 (1980). We concluded that the
plaintiff "produced sufficient proof" of the defendant's negligence , noting that
although there were no reports of crime in the building, there were numerous
reports of crime in its immediate area and the defendant was aware of
unauthorized persons in the hallway on prior occasions. Id. at 16. We also held
that a detective, who had investigated the crime against the plaintiff and had
personally investigated between 75 and 100 crimes in the immediate
A-2765-18
24
neighborhood, could offer an opinion that it was a "high crime area." Id. at 19-
20. The McLean Court cited Trentacost, noting the detective's lay opinion
testimony in that case was based on his personal perception and observation.
205 N.J. at 459 (citing Trentacost, 164 N.J. Super. at 19–20).
In this case, Lazu did not testify from personal observations and
perceptions of the area. He said the area was "known" as a "hot spot," one of
many on a "list" of hot spots throughout the city. He said, without any detail,
that a "high level [of] narcotics investigations ha[d] been conducted" in the area,
and there were shootings. Admissibility of lay opinion testimony of this kind
must be "firmly rooted in the personal observations and perceptions of the lay
witness in the traditional meaning of the Rule 701." Ibid. Lazu never testified
about his own personal observations of the area, or his personal involvement in
investigations or arrests in the area. 9
9
Torres cites decisions from other states supporting the proposition that
testimony about high crime areas is "irrelevant to the issue of guilt," Fleurimond
v. State, 10 So. 3d 1140, 1145 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009), suggests the defendant
has a "bad character or propensity" to commit crimes, Wheeler v. State, 690 So.
2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997), and has "no relevancy to the charge
that defendant possessed [drugs]" and "tended to show [his] 'guilt by
association,'" Smith v. Commonwealth, 228 S.E.2d 562, 562–63 (Va. 1976).
These cases are not precedential, although their reasoning is persuasive. We
rely on our analysis of the testimony in this case and conclude it was not based
A-2765-18
25
Instead, Lazu's testimony was simply hearsay, based on evidence obtained
from out-of-court sources never disclosed, never introduced at trial and never
subject to cross-examination. Defendant was denied the right to confront those
sources before the jury. For nearly fifty years, our courts have recognized "both
the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule are violated when, at trial, a police
officer conveys, directly or by inference, information from a non-testifying
declarant to incriminate the defendant in the crime charged." State v. Branch,
182 N.J. 338, 350 (2005) (citing Bankston, 63 N.J. at 268–69) (emphasis added).
Lazu's statement that defendants emerged from a house in a "hot spot," an area
of known narcotic activities and shootings, incriminated defendants by
implication.
The State reprises its argument, persuasive to the trial judge, that the jury
was entitled to know why Lazu was in the area on surveillance. "It is well settled
that the hearsay rule is not violated when a police officer explains the reason he
approached a suspect or went to the scene of the crime by stating that he did so
'upon information received.'" Bankston, 63 N.J. at 268 (quoting McCormick,
Evidence (2d ed. 1972) § 248, p. 587). However, Lazu did much more than that.
on Lazu's personal observations, and, therefore, was not admissible as lay
opinion testimony.
A-2765-18
26
He detailed the substance of that "information," i.e., the house was in a crime-
ridden area on a list of hot spots known to police for violent drug transactions
and shootings.
The highly prejudicial nature of this inadmissible evidence is obvious
when we consider the judge's warning to the last two police witnesses not to
mention anything that occurred before Lazu began his surveillance of the
premises. The judge wanted to ensure the witnesses did not blurt out
information peculiarly within the knowledge of law enforcement, but not based
on personal observation and not disclosed to jurors, like the anonymous tip from
a neighbor. We fail to see why the judge did not recognize that Lazu's testimony
about the nature of the area was similarly inadmissible and prejudicial. 10
10
This was not an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress, where, for
example, hearsay evidence regarding the nature of the area and prior
investigations and arrests in the area, is admissible. See N.J.R.E. 104(a)(1)
("The court shall decide any preliminary question about whether . . . evidence is
admissible. In so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except
those on privilege and Rule 403."). The admission of such evidence at a hearing
on a motion to suppress does not deprive a defendant of his due process rights
or violate the Confrontation Clause. State v. Williams, 404 N.J. Super. 147, 171
(App. Div. 2008); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 679 (1980)
(emphasizing that "the process due at a suppression hearing may be less
demanding and elaborate than the protections accorded the defendant at the trial
itself").
A-2765-18
27
Lazu's opinions that people he saw entering and leaving the house on Rosa
Parks Boulevard, and his opinion that Correa-Martinez had engaged in a
narcotics transaction with Diaz, were also inadmissible. In McLean, the Court
squarely held that a police officer may not render his opinion that a drug
transaction occurred because such an opinion is inadmissible as either an expert
or a lay opinion. 205 N.J. at 461–63. A police officer testifying as a lay witness
may only testify to fact testimony, "through which an officer is permitted to set
forth what he or she perceived through one or more of the senses." Id. at 460.
Fact testimony "includes no opinion, lay or expert, and does not convey
information about what the officer 'believed,' 'thought' or 'suspected,' but instead
is an ordinary fact-based recitation by a witness with first-hand knowledge."
Ibid. A lay witness is not permitted to testify about "the significance" or his
interpretation of a series of events because that "does not fall outside the ken of
the jury," but is instead something that the jury is equally capable of evaluating.
Id. at 461. To permit a lay witness to opine on the meaning of what he saw,
would, especially for police witnesses, permit an officer to opine on the
defendant’s guilt. Ibid. This was precisely what the judge permitted Lazu to do
over defendants' objections.
A-2765-18
28
The only close question is whether this inadmissible testimony requires
reversal. The jury acquitted both defendants of all counts involving possession
or sale of heroin, as well as possession of two of the three guns police claimed
to have confiscated from them. Torres specifically argues, however, that the
jury could have concluded someone who lives in a crime-ridden neighborhood
where there are frequent shootings, in a house where multiple drug transactions
occurred, is more likely to need a gun and therefore possess a gun. Additionally,
the prosecutor highlighted Lazu's impermissible testimony several times during
his summation.
"When evidence is admitted that contravenes not only the hearsay rule but
also a constitutional right, an appellate court must determine whether the error
impacted the verdict." State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 154 (2014) (citing
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1965)). "The standard has been phrased
as requiring a reviewing court 'to declare a belief that [the error] was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting Chapman,
386 U.S. at 24). We cannot conclude that this inadmissible evidence , in
conjunction with the inadmissible and prejudicial NCIC evidence, was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt, and so we reverse defendants' convictions.
A-2765-18
29
III.
Because we reverse defendants' convictions, we need not address the other
trial issues raised or defendants' arguments regarding their sentences. We do
address Correa-Martinez's argument regarding the denial of his motion to
suppress in the event the State decides to retry the case.
Lazu and Judeh testified at the pretrial evidentiary hearing on the motion
to suppress, and the motion judge found their testimony credible. The judge
denied the motion, concluding the search of the Honda was permitted by the
automobile exception to the warrant requirement and was also a valid search
incident to arrest.
Before us, defendant Correa-Martinez contends police lacked any
justification for immediately ordering him out of the passenger side of the Honda
and thereafter conducting a warrantless search of the car. Defendant relies
primarily on State v. Robinson, 228 N.J. 529 (2017). The State argues that Judeh
had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify opening the passenger door and
engaging in a search based on the totality of the circumstances, including Lazu's
observations of defendants and Torres' furtive movement at the gas station. The
State argues this was not an impermissible protective sweep in violation of
A-2765-18
30
Robinson, but rather a valid warrantless search permitted by the automobile
exception and was also a valid search incident to arrest.
In State v. Bacome, the Court reaffirmed that "officers may remove
passengers only when the circumstances present reason for heightened caution."
228 N.J. 94, 107 (2017). In this case, the combined information Lazu relayed,
and the information Judeh had from Montoya's observations of Torres' motion
in the car as it stopped at the gas station, was sufficient to meet that standard.
See id. at 97–98, 108 (noting officers' prior knowledge of defendants' drug
dealing, neighborhood complaints and the defendant's furtive movement
reaching under the seat met heightened caution standard justifying removing
passenger from vehicle).
At the hearing on the motions to suppress, Judeh testified that Torres
reached down below the driver's seat while the Honda was parked at the gas
station. At the time, Judeh did not place either defendant under arrest, but he
entered through the front passenger door "to see what was being reached for."
He observed the gun on the floor of the driver's side.
In Robinson, the Court recognized that "a police officer's warrantless
search of the passenger compartment of a vehicle, following a lawful traffic
stop, is a constitutional protective sweep when the circumstances give rise to a
A-2765-18
31
reasonable suspicion that a driver or passenger is 'dangerous and may gain
immediate access to weapons.'" Id. at 534 (quoting State v. Gamble, 218 N.J.
412, 432 (2014)). Correa-Martinez argues that because he and Torres were
effectively in custody with the other two officers, there was no potential danger
requiring Judeh's entry into the vehicle. See id. at 549 (concluding the protective
sweep of the car was unjustified because the officers "assumed and maintained
control of the vehicle and the scene").
However, in Gamble, the Court upheld the warrantless "protective sweep"
of the passenger compartment of a van, finding it was "justified under the totality
of the circumstances." 218 N.J. at 433. The Court cited a "confluence of
factors" justifying the limited search, including 911 calls of gunfire, the late
hour and high crime area, and furtive movements of the occupants as officers
approached. Ibid.
Here, Judeh testified that defendants were not under arrest at the time of
the stop at the gas station and, when the initial pat down of both yielded no
weapons or drugs, presumably defendants would have been free to go. Yet,
Judeh testified he had received information from Lazu that one of the occupants
might have a gun, and Montoya said Torres had reached under his seat. In
Gamble, the Court said: "once the officer completed the patdown of defendant
A-2765-18
32
and did not locate the gun, it was reasonable for the officer to believe the van
contained a gun. To permit defendant and his passenger to reenter the van before
ensuring that it did not contain a weapon ignores the risk to officers and public
safety." Id. at 434. The facts here more closely resemble those in Gamble than
those presented in Robinson.
We affirm the denial of Correa-Martinez's motion to suppress, albeit for
reasons other than those expressed by the motion judge.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-2765-18
33