STATE IN THE INTEREST OF J.R. (FJ-06-0241-17, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is 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-0665-17T3
STATE IN THE
INTEREST OF J.R.
_________________________
Submitted October 15, 2018 – Decided October 22, 2018
Before Judges Haas and Sumners.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Cumberland County, Docket No.
FJ-06-0241-17.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant J.R. (Al Glimis, Designated Counsel; William
P. Welaj, on the brief).
Jennifer Webb-McRae, Cumberland County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey
(Stephen C. Sayer, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Following a bench trial, J.R., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent for
acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute second-degree aggravated
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); fourth-degree possession of a weapon for an
unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d); and second-degree conspiracy to
commit aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1).
The trial judge imposed concurrent, suspended two-year terms on the aggravated
assault and conspiracy charges, and a concurrent, suspended one-year term on
the weapons charge, and placed J.R. on probation for eighteen months.
On appeal, J.R. argues that "there was insufficient evidence in the trial
record to support the trial court's conclusion [that he] was guilty of any of the
three charges brought against him." After reviewing the record in light of the
applicable legal standards, we affirm.
The charges against J.R. stemmed from an incident that occurred late in
the afternoon on November 25, 2016. On that date, the victim was walking
down the street when an occupant in a passing car shot him twice with a paintball
gun. The shots came from the driver's side window of the vehicle. The second
paintball struck the victim in his right eye, and he continues to suffer from
"cloudy" vision. The victim was not able to identify the car or the assailant who
shot him.
Detective Kenneth Leyman was one of the police officers who reported to
the scene. He observed two, broken pink paintballs on the sidewalk, as well as
two pink paintball strikes on the front of a building near where the victim was
A-0665-17T3
2
hit. The detective reviewed a number of recordings made by video surveillance
cameras in the area and was able to determine that the car involved in the
shooting was a two-door Honda Civic with tinted windows.
Several days later, the police observed a car matching that description,
parked in front of a house where C.F., a high school student, lived. Detective
Leyman went to the scene and saw numerous pink paintball strikes on the front
of a building across the street from C.F.'s home. Detective Leyman also learned
that just three days before the victim in this case was shot, two students at the
high school reported that C.F. was shooting paintballs out of a vehicle in front
of the school. Detective Leyman checked the registration of the car in front of
the house and learned it was owned by C.F.'s girlfriend.
Detective Leyman set up a surveillance of the car that continued for
several days. During that period, the police saw C.F. driving the car on several
occasions. The detective then obtained, and executed, a search warrant for the
car. During the search, the police found six paintball guns, and thousands of
paintballs, including several that were pink. One of the guns was a pump-action
model. That gun contained a pink paintball that had exploded.
A-0665-17T3
3
Detective Leyman next interviewed C.F. at the police station. 1 At first,
C.F. denied any involvement in the shooting. However, after learning of the
victim's injury and speaking with his mother, C.F. stated that J.R. shot the victim
with the pump-action paintball gun through the driver's side window of the car
while C.F. was driving it.
C.F. repeated this account at the trial. C.F. explained that he initially lied
to Detective Leyman about knowing anything about the shooting because he
wanted to protect both himself and J.R., who was his close friend and "right -
hand man." Although J.R.'s attorney vigorously cross-examined C.F. on the
question of J.R.'s involvement in the shooting, C.F. insisted that J.R. had been
the shooter.2
J.R. did not testify at the trial. However, his attorney called C.F.'s mother,
T.M., as a witness. T.M. stated that C.F. told her "[i]t had to be [J.R.] that was
with me in that car that day." T.M. agreed with C.F., stating "[t]hat's who it
probably was. That's who you are with all the time."
1
C.F.'s mother was present throughout the interview.
2
Sometime prior to the trial, C.F. pled guilty to two charges, second-degree
aggravated assaulted and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful
purpose, as the result of his involvement in the incident. In accordance with the
plea agreement, the trial court sentenced C.F. to one year of probation.
A-0665-17T3
4
Based on this record, Judge Gary Wodlinger found that the State had met
its burden of establishing J.R.'s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all three
charges. In his oral opinion, the judge found all of the witnesses, including C.F.,
to be credible. The judge explained the basis for his credibility determination
concerning C.F. in the following specific terms:
His testimony was - - I wrote it down in big bold
letters, reluctant snitch. He really wasn't interested in
telling on his buddy in life. That was the last thing he
wanted to do. He seemed less protective of . . . himself
than he was of his friend. That's my sense of the
testimony.
That's how I heard the relationship described, and
really not rebutted anywhere during this trial. I believe
the testimony that he offered here, live in court, about
what happened that day, is the absolute truth about what
happened.
The judge rejected defendant's argument that C.F. was not credible
because he initially denied knowing anything about the shooting, and then
implicated J.R. after learning there was surveillance video showing the incident.
The judge stated:
In the background noise, testimony, the
evolutionary version of [C.F.'s] story was just that. The
bi-product of good police work, done by a trained
detective, who was able to get the star witness to
ultimately tell him exactly what happened, so he could
figure out what happened and who should be properly
charged.
A-0665-17T3
5
This appeal followed.
On appeal, J.R. contends that C.F. was not a credible witness because his
story changed during his interview with Detective Leyman, and he may have
decided to shift the blame to J.R. to protect himself and his mother from a
potential lawsuit by the victim. Therefore, J.R. argues that the judge erred by
relying on C.F.'s account of the incident to find J.R. guilty of the three offenses.
We disagree.
Our standard of review in juvenile delinquency cases is the same as the
one applicable to any court's decision after a bench trial. The standard is not
whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, but rather "whether
there is sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the judge's
determination." In re R.V., 280 N.J. Super. 118, 121 (App. Div. 1995).
Moreover, we are obliged to "give deference to those findings of the trial judge
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 (1999) (quoting State v. Johnson,
42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)).
"[T]he factual findings of the trial court are binding on appeal when
supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." In re W.M., 364 N.J.
A-0665-17T3
6
Super. 155, 165 (App. Div. 2003). "[W]e 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. Investors 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)).
Applying these standards, we discern no basis for interfering with Judge
Wodlinger's well-developed findings, conclusions, and disposition on these
charges. The judge credited C.F.'s testimony that J.R. shot the victim with the
paintball gun while C.F. drove the car down the street. The judge made detailed
credibility findings explaining his reasons for believing C.F.'s account of the
incident, and we defer to those determinations. Locurto, 157 N.J. at 471.
Therefore, we conclude that Judge Wodlinger's factual findings are fully
supported by the record and, in light of those facts, his legal conclusions are
unassailable. We therefore affirm substantially for the reasons that the jud ge
expressed in his well-reasoned oral opinion.
Affirmed.
A-0665-17T3
7