STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. B.W. (10-01-0010, PASSAIC 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0077-17T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
B.W.,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
Submitted January 31, 2019 – Decided May 28, 2019
Before Judges O'Connor and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 10-01-0010.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (John A. Albright, Designated Counsel;
William P. Welaj, on the brief).
Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Robert J. Wisse, Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant B.W.1 appeals from the July 12, 2017 order of the Law Division
denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary
hearing. We affirm in part and remand in part.
I.
In 2012, a jury convicted defendant of first-degree aggravated sexual
assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1), second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-
2(b), and second-degree endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a),
for numerous sexual assaults on his daughter beginning when she was eight
years old. The abuse stopped when the daughter moved out of State with her
mother at age eleven. The daughter first reported defendant's sexual abuse when
she was thirteen.
We address only those aspects of the trial testimony relevant to the issues
on appeal. At the time of trial, defendant's daughter was sixteen. She testified
in detail with respect to three occasions on which defendant performed various
acts of sexual penetration. She stated that she did not report the crimes at the
times they occurred because defendant threatened to harm her mother if she
revealed his abuse.
1
We use initials to protect the identity of the victim of defendant's sexual
assaults. R. 1:38-3(c)(9).
A-0077-17T1
2
The child's mother also testified. She recounted having taken her daughter
to the emergency department on three occasions while they lived in New Jersey.
Once, after a visit with defendant, the mother noticed that her daughter was
crying from pain and unable to use the bathroom. The child was diagnosed with
a urinary tract infection. A separate visit to the emergency room also resulted
in a diagnosis of a urinary tract infection. A third visit was brought about by
the daughter's complaint of abdominal pain and mild discomfort during
urination. She was diagnosed with abdominal pain and constipation. The child
did not report sexual abuse during any of the visits.
A physician who treated the daughter during one of the emergency
department visits also testified. During cross-examination, defendant's counsel
directed the physician's attention to the records of a 2009 medical examination
of the daughter. The examination, which took place out of State two years after
the daughter's last physical contact with defendant, resulted in a diagnosis of a
genital rash. Defendant's counsel asked the witness to identify the possible
causes of such a rash. The witness responded that a genital rash could be caused
by contact with another individual or by auto-inoculation from scratching a rash
in another area of the body.
A-0077-17T1
3
Another physician testified as an expert in pediatric medicine. During
cross-examination, defendant's counsel asked the expert about the fact that the
daughter's medical records from the examinations in New Jersey did not indicate
findings of physical trauma to the anus. The expert testified that bleeding, pain
and hemorrhoid development may be consistent with anal rape, but that an
absence of physical trauma does not mean that sexual abuse involving the anus
did not occur. The expert testified that the anus is equipped to adapt to
penetration, which could prevent physical injury during forced anal intercourse.
The State also called a psychologist who testified as an expert on Child
Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). He identified the five
characteristics of CSAAS: secrecy; helplessness; entrapment and
accommodation; delayed, conflicted, unconvincing disclosure; and recantation.
He testified that child victims often keep their sexual abuse secret out of fear
and may feel no one will believe them. During her summation, the assistant
prosecutor referred to this testimony, stating
[y]ou heard about [CSAAS]. That's what happens.
They accommodate. Children are growing up. They
don't want to go to the doctor's for a shot. What do you
say, "All right [sic], forget it. You're not going to go to
the doctor's for a shot?" [Y]ou're going to go.
A-0077-17T1
4
Although defense counsel objected to other comments by the assistant
prosecutor during her summation, he did not object to this remark.
After the jury reached its verdict, the trial court sentenced defendant to a
life term, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. At a
subsequent hearing, the court deemed the life sentence to be seventy-five years,
and calculated the statutory parole ineligibility period to be sixty-three years and
nine months. In his direct appeal, defendant raised several arguments, including
that the testimony regarding CSAAS was inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 702
because it was not based on reliable science.
We affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. State v. B.W., No. A-
4354-12 (App. Div. Apr. 22, 2015). We held, among other things, that the
admissibility of CSAAS testimony was well settled by the holding in State v.
J.Q., 130 N.J. 554 (1993). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for
certification. State v. B.W., 223 N.J. 281 (2015).
On November 18, 2016, defendant filed a petition for PCR in the Law
Division. He argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial
because his attorney: (1) elicited damaging testimony during the cross-
examination of the State's medical witnesses as a result of his failure to consult
a medical expert prior to trial; (2) failed to object to the assistant prosecutor's
A-0077-17T1
5
comment during summation regarding the CSAAS testimony and should have
requested a retrial or a curative instruction; and (3) failed to investigate an alibi
defense by not interviewing two witnesses, defendant's brother and his girlfriend
at the time of the offenses. Defendant argued that his then-girlfriend would have
testified that she was with him whenever his daughter visited. Defendant argued
these errors separately and cumulatively warranted reversal of his convictions.
Finally, defendant argued that the CSAAS testimony should not have been
admitted under N.J.R.E. 702 because it is based on "junk science." Although
acknowledging that he raised this argument on direct appeal, defendant argued
that the PCR court should consider it anew.
On July 12, 2017, the PCR judge, who presided at defendant's trial and
sentencing, issued a comprehensive oral opinion denying defendant's PCR
petition without an evidentiary hearing. The judge concluded that defendant had
not established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The judge found that defendant could not establish that he was harmed by
his counsel's cross-examination of the State's medical witnesses because their
testimony did not attribute the daughter's genital rash to contact with defendant.
Instead, the cross-examination elicited testimony identifying a number of
possible causes for the daughter's rash, noting that the rash was diagnosed more
A-0077-17T1
6
than two years after the daughter's last physical contact with defendant, and
highlighting the daughter's failure to mention sexual abuse during her medical
visits. In addition, the judge concluded that defense counsel could not have
avoided asking about the lack of physical trauma to the daughter's anus because
it was inevitable that the jury would have the same question.
In addition, the judge concluded that the question of the admissibility of
CSAAS testimony was addressed in defendant's direct appeal, precluding its
consideration in a subsequent PCR petition. The judge found nothing improper
in the assistant prosecutor's reference to that testimony in her summation, given
the admissibility of the testimony. Thus, the judge concluded that defense
counsel's failure to object to the remark could not be seen as ineffective
assistance of counsel.
With respect to the alibi witnesses, the judge noted that defendant had not
submitted certifications from the witnesses summarizing the testimony they
would have provided at trial. Moreover, the judge, having heard all of the
testimony at trial, recalled that the daughter visited defendant on multiple
occasions during which he had unrestricted access to the child. The judge
concluded that it was unlikely anyone could have testified truthfully that they
spent every possible minute with defendant when his daughter was visiting.
A-0077-17T1
7
Thus, the judge concluded that defense counsel's "representation was
vigorous, forceful and as effective as it could be under all of these
circumstances." The judge noted that the daughter was "a compelling, consistent
and very credible witness" who "was affirmatively credible . . . despite . . . strong
efforts" by defense counsel during cross-examination to challenge the veracity
of her testimony. The judge concluded that the record contained "no evidence"
of ineffective assistance of counsel and that an evidentiary hearing was
unnecessary. On July 12, 2017, the judge entered an order denying defendant's
PCR petition.
This appeal followed. On appeal, defendant raises the following
arguments for our consideration:
POINT I
THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT ERRED
IN DENYING THE DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF WITHOUT
AFFORDING HIM AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
TO FULLY ADDRESS HIS CONTENTION THAT HE
FAILED TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE LEGAL
REPRESENTATION FROM TRIAL COUNSEL.
A. THE PREVAILING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
REGARDING CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, EVIDENTIARY
HEARINGS AND PETITIONS FOR POST-
CONVICTION RELIEF.
A-0077-17T1
8
B. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE
ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM
TRIAL COUNSEL AS A RESULT OF COUNSEL'S
INEFFECTIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF TWO
CRUCIAL WITNESSES PRESENTED BY THE
STATE WHICH SERVED TO ELICIT TESTIMONY
DAMAGING AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE
DEFENDANT.
C. THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE
ADEQUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION FROM
TRIAL COUNSEL AS A RESULT OF COUNSEL'S
FAILURE TO OBJECT TO A CERTAIN ASPECT OF
THE PROSECUTOR'S SUMMATION WHICH
EXCEEDED THE BOUNDS OF PROPRIETY.
II.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I,
Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution guarantee criminal defendants the
right to the effective assistance of counsel. State v. O'Neil, 219 N.J. 598, 610
(2014). To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant
must meet the two-part test established by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 686 (1984), and adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J.
42, 58 (1987).
Under Strickland, a defendant first must show that his or her attorney
made errors "so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel'
guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at
A-0077-17T1
9
687. Counsel's performance is deficient if it "[falls] below an objective standard
of reasonableness." Id. at 688.
A defendant also must show that counsel's "deficient performance
prejudiced the defense." Id. at 687. The defendant must establish that "there is
a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result
of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694. "A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome"
of the proceeding. Ibid.
A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a PCR petition if the
defendant presents a prima facie case in support of PCR, the court determines
there are material issues of fact that cannot be resolved based on the existing
record, and the court finds that an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the
claims presented. R. 3:22-10(b); see also State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 354
(2013).
Having carefully reviewed defendant's arguments in light of the record
and applicable legal principles, we affirm the July 12, 2017 order for the reasons
stated by the judge in her thorough and well-reasoned oral opinion with respect
to all issues, except those relating to the CSAAS testimony.
A-0077-17T1
10
With respect to defendant's argument that the trial court erred by admitting
the CSAAS testimony, we note that Rule 3:22-5 provides:
[a] prior adjudication upon the merits of any ground for
relief is conclusive whether made in the proceedings
resulting in the conviction or in any post-conviction
proceeding brought pursuant to this rule or prior to the
adoption thereof, or in any appeal taken from such
proceedings.
The Supreme Court has held that
[p]reclusion of consideration of an argument presented
in post-conviction relief proceedings should be effected
only if the issue raised is identical or substantially
equivalent to that adjudicated previously on direct
appeal.
[State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 150 (1997) (quoting
State v. Bontempo, 170 N.J. Super. 220, 234 (Law Div.
1979)).]
It is understandable why the judge found defendant's argument with respect to
the CSAAS testimony should be barred. He raised, and we rejected, the issue
on direct appeal. Recent developments, however, require that the PCR judge
review the issue anew.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court issued its opinion
in State v. J.L.G., 234 N.J. 265 (2018). In that case, the Court partially
overturned its holding in State v. J.Q. The Court held:
A-0077-17T1
11
[b]ased on what is known today, it is no longer possible
to conclude that CSAAS has a sufficiently reliable basis
in science to be the subject of expert testimony. We
find continued scientific support for only one aspect of
the theory – delayed disclosure – because scientists
generally accept that a significant percentage of
children delay reporting sexual abuse.
We therefore hold that expert testimony about CSAAS
in general, and its component behaviors other than
delayed disclosure, may no longer be admitted at
criminal trials. Evidence about delayed disclosure can
be presented if it satisfies all parts of the applicable
evidence rule. See N.J.R.E. 702. In particular, the
State must show that the evidence is beyond the
understanding of the average juror.
[Id. at 272.]
The Court noted that admissibility of CSAAS expert testimony on this limited
aspect of the syndrome "will turn on the facts of each case." Ibid. When a
victim gives "straightforward reasons about why she delayed reporting abuse,
the jury [does] not need help from an expert to evaluate her explanation.
However, if a child cannot offer a rational explanation, expert testimony may
help the jury understand the witness's behavior." Ibid. The Court, however,
concluded that the improper admission of CSAAS testimony may be harmless
"in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt." Id. at 306.
The Court did not opine with respect to whether its holding will be applied
retroactively. In State v. G.E.P., ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. Mar. 27, 2019)
A-0077-17T1
12
(slip op. at 11), certif. pending, we concluded that the holding in J.L.G. "should
be given at least pipeline retroactivity," rending it applicable to all cases in
which the parties have not exhausted all avenues of direct review when the
opinion in J.L.G. was issued. Because all four cases pending before the court in
G.E.P. were on direct appeal when the opinion in J.L.G. was issued, we decided
"only whether pipeline retroactively is appropriate." Id. at 8. We offered no
opinion with respect to whether the holding in J.L.G. should be given complete
retroactive effect, rending it applicable to all prior convictions. See State v.
Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 402-403 (1981).
If it is determined that the holding in J.L.G. is applied with complete
retroactivity then application of the holding to defendant would be a "ground for
relief not previously asserted [that] could not reasonably have been raised in any
prior proceeding" and, as a result, permitted in a PCR petition. See R. 3:22-
4(a)(1); State v. Reyes, 140 N.J. 344 (1995) (allowing defendant to seek PCR
relief based on retroactive application of appellate decision issued after direct
appeal); State v. Lark, 229 N.J. Super. 586, 592-93 (App. Div.) (same), rev'd on
other grounds, 117 N.J. 331 (1989).
Because of the timing of the release of the decision in J.L.G., the parties
did not address in their briefs the Court's holding, or whether it should be applied
A-0077-17T1
13
with complete retroactivity. We therefore remand this matter to the PCR court
to analyze in the first instance whether the holding in J.L.G. applies with
complete retroactively. If the court determines that J.L.G. is completely
retroactive, it will have to decide whether the introduction of CSAAS testimony
at defendant's trial was harmless error.
Affirmed in part, remanded in part for proceedings consistent with this
opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-0077-17T1
14