State of New Jersey v. Hugo Fierro

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4641-12T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
Plaintiff-Respondent, January 6, 2015
v. APPELLATE DIVISION
HUGO FIERRO,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________
Submitted November 13, 2014 – Decided January 6, 2015
Before Judges Ashrafi, Kennedy, and
O'Connor.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Indictment
No. 12-05-1305.
Fusco & Macaluso, L.L.C., attorneys for
appellant (Amie E. DiCola, on the brief).
Carolyn A. Murray, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Andrew
R. Burroughs, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
ASHRAFI, J.A.D.
Defendant Hugo Fierro, formerly a City of Newark police
officer, appeals from his conviction by a jury for simple and
aggravated assault and for official misconduct. We affirm.
In May 2012, defendant was indicted by a grand jury on five
counts: (Count One) second-degree official misconduct, N.J.S.A.
2C:30-2; (Count Two) third-degree aggravated assault causing
significant bodily injury, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(7); (Count Three)
third-degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1(b)(2); (Count Four) fourth-degree aggravated assault by
pointing a handgun at another person, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4);
and (Count Five) second-degree possession of a weapon for an
unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a).
Defendant was tried before a jury in February 2013. The
jury acquitted him of aggravated assault as charged in the
second count, which required proof that he caused or attempted
to cause significant bodily injury, and it acquitted him of the
fourth and fifth counts charging the pointing and unlawful
possession of his handgun. The jury found defendant guilty of
simple assault as a lesser-included disorderly persons offense
of the second count of the indictment, and guilty of third-
degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and second-degree
official misconduct.
2 A-4641-12T4
On April 29, 2013, the court sentenced defendant to five
years imprisonment without parole. The five-year prison term
was the minimum sentence required under a statute enacted in
2007 that imposes mandatory sentences without parole if a public
official commits certain crimes, including official misconduct,
and the crime "involves or touches such office or employment."
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.5.1
The evidence at the trial showed the following facts.
Defendant was born in Ecuador and is a naturalized citizen of
the United States. He was a long-time resident of Newark and an
eleven-year veteran of the Newark Police Department. While off-
duty on the night of May 7 into May 8, 2011, defendant and his
wife went to dinner, followed by several hours of dancing.
After the dancing, they went to a bar in the Ironbound section
of Newark for coffee and a nightcap.
When they arrived outside the bar, defendant saw several
men drinking openly on the sidewalk. He went toward the men and
1
The judgment of conviction contains an error. It was the
court's intention to sentence defendant to five years
imprisonment without parole on Count One charging official
misconduct, three years imprisonment for aggravated assault with
a deadly weapon as charged in Count Three, and six months
imprisonment for simple assault, the lesser-included offense of
Count Two. The sentences run concurrently. The judgment of
conviction entered on April 30, 2013, mistakenly reverses the
sentences on Counts Two and Three. We remand to the trial court
for correction of the judgment of conviction.
3 A-4641-12T4
ordered them to disperse. He then saw a man swaying and
stumbling near the entrance of the bar. Defendant identified
himself as a police officer and spoke to the man for several
minutes. He then took the man by the arm and led him toward the
street for the purpose of getting a taxi to take the man home.
As defendant was talking with the intoxicated man in an
animated manner, another man approached. We will refer to the
other man as the victim of the assault by defendant. The
versions of defendant and the victim differ regarding what
occurred next.
The victim testified in Spanish at defendant's trial that
he had spent the night at someone's house watching boxing
matches on television. At about 1:45 a.m., he was on his way to
the same bar to which defendant and his wife were going. He
testified that he was not drunk. As he walked from his car
toward the bar, he was holding his car keys tied to a string.
He saw two men talking in the middle of the sidewalk. When he
got closer, one of the men, later identified as defendant,
yelled to him "what's your problem? What's your problem?"
According to the victim, defendant then tried to grab him
by the front of his shirt, and the victim pushed defendant's
hand away. As defendant tried to grab the victim a second time,
the victim saw defendant take a handgun from his side.
4 A-4641-12T4
Defendant said he was a police officer, and the victim began
backing away. Defendant came after the victim, pushed him in
the chest, and then hit him in the face with the barrel of the
gun he was holding. The victim turned and ran towards his home,
his nose bleeding.
At home, the victim told his wife what happened. She
washed off his face and gave him medicine to ease the pain of
his swollen nose. He did not seek additional medical treatment,
and he threw out the shirt on which he had bled. The next day,
the victim and his wife went to the bar and learned that the man
who had struck him was in fact a police officer. They went to
the police station and reported the incident.
Police investigators testified that they showed the victim
a photo array several months after the incident and he selected
defendant's photograph as possibly the man who had struck him,
but he was not positive of the identification. However, the
incident had been recorded by a stationary outdoor surveillance
camera, and defendant was identified positively as the officer
who had struck the victim.
In the defense case, defendant first called a police
lieutenant who had taken the report of the incident from the
victim and his wife the day after it happened. The lieutenant
testified that he formally reported the matter to the Newark
5 A-4641-12T4
Police Department's internal affairs unit. He also testified
that he saw no visible sign of injury to the victim's nose or
face.
Defendant testified that his actions that night were
justified. He said he was trying to help the intoxicated man,
and the victim interfered and would not stand back. The victim
continued approaching when defendant identified himself as a
police officer and was making derogatory comments to defendant.
According to defendant, the victim was yelling "f*** you, you're
not a cop," and called defendant "extranjeros," which is an
insulting term referring to a foreigner. Defendant testified
that he held out his hand to create space between himself and
the victim. The victim slapped defendant's hand away twice.
Defendant believed the victim was intoxicated and might be
armed. He noticed a shiny object attached to a string in the
victim's hand and believed it could possibly be a knife or a
small gun. Defendant drew his gun and pushed the victim "hard
in the chest with his weapon hand," at which point the victim
turned and ran away. Defendant admitted he pushed the victim
three times before striking him with the hand in which he was
holding his gun. He also conceded that the victim never
responded with force during the incident.
6 A-4641-12T4
The soundless surveillance film revealed the following.
When defendant first arrived outside the bar, his attention was
drawn to something outside the range of the surveillance camera.
He became actively involved with other people on the sidewalk
and in the general area of the bar. He seemed to be directing
another man toward the street and ordering him to move away. He
then returned in the direction of the bar and spoke for more
than a minute with an unidentified man near the entrance, who
may have been intoxicated. As the two were speaking on the
sidewalk, the victim approached.
Defendant's encounter with the victim lasted about twenty
seconds. The video shows the victim walking toward defendant,
who is in the middle of the sidewalk holding the unidentified
man's arm with his right hand. The victim veers to one side as
he apparently sees the two men in his path. While the victim is
still a car-length away from defendant and the unidentified man,
defendant gestures toward him with his hand and appears to say
something to the victim. The victim then attempts to walk
around defendant toward the entrance of the bar, but passes
close to defendant and the unidentified man. The video does not
show whether the victim is speaking to defendant, although his
face is turned toward defendant as he walks by slowly.
7 A-4641-12T4
Defendant turns quickly and reaches for the victim with his
right hand. The victim swats defendant's hand away. In
response, defendant steps away from the unidentified man and
hits the victim in the chest with his left hand while at the
same time removing his gun from his side with his right hand.
The victim steps back. His arms are at or near his sides. A
long band (apparently attached to the victim's car keys) can be
seen dangling from one hand of the victim. His other hand
appears to hold nothing. The victim does not display any
physical aggression. Both defendant and the victim appear to be
speaking toward each other.
At that point, defendant moves toward the victim and
quickly hits him again in the chest with his left hand. This
causes the victim to take another step or two back. Defendant
then swings at the victim with his right hand, in which he is
holding his gun. Although not clear on the video, it appears
that defendant's right hand strikes the victim on the bottom
half of his face or in the neck area. The victim immediately
begins to run. Defendant walks after him still holding his gun.
Defendant's wife then goes into the bar and comes out a
short time later accompanied by two men. The three walk out of
view in the direction that the victim and defendant went. Less
than a minute later, they return with defendant, who is talking
8 A-4641-12T4
to the two men in a friendly manner. All four walk into the
bar.
At the trial, defendant testified that he chased the victim
for nearly a minute before losing him. He stated he did not
call for police backup because his wife had his cell phone. As
he walked back toward the bar, he was met by his wife and also a
police sergeant and a lieutenant that he knew.
The two superior officers testified in the State's case at
the trial that they had been dining inside the bar when
defendant's wife came in and told them something was happening
that involved defendant. They were acquainted with defendant
from their police duties but did not socialize with him.
Neither saw what happened outside during the altercation. When
they came out of the bar and met defendant, he told them
everything was all right and that "he handled the situation."
They were not aware that night that defendant had drawn his gun
during the incident.
Defendant knew that police department rules required him to
prepare an incident report and a use-of-force form because he
had drawn and used his gun during the incident. He testified he
did not fill out the forms because the victim outran him and he
did not think it would be helpful to the situation.
9 A-4641-12T4
As stated previously, the jury convicted defendant of some
of the charges in the indictment and acquitted him of others.
On appeal, defendant argues:
POINT I
THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE OFFICER FIERRO'S
CONVICTION BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT
ERRONEOUSLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF UPON
THE DEFENDANT WHEN IT REQUIRED OFFICER
FIERRO TO TESTIFY BEFORE IT WOULD PERMIT A
USE OF FORCE INSTRUCTION TO BE GIVEN TO THE
JURY.
POINT II
THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE OFFICER FIERRO'S
CONVICTION BECAUSE THE JURY'S VERDICT IS
FATALLY FLAWED SINCE IT NEGATES THE
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.
POINT III
THE COURT SHOULD REVERSE OFFICER FIERRO'S
CONVICTION BECAUSE THE VERDICT IS AGAINST
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
Defendant argues first that the trial court erroneously
denied his attorney's request at the close of the State's case-
in-chief to include a use-of-force instruction pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:3-7(a) as part of the court's final charge to the
jury. See Model Jury Charge (Criminal), "Use of Force in Law
Enforcement" (1983). He contends the court's erroneous ruling
"compelled [him] to present evidence at trial" and thus shifted
the burden of proof to him in defense of the criminal charges,
which is a violation of his constitutional right to due process.
10 A-4641-12T4
In a criminal prosecution, the State bears the burden of
proving all elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable
doubt, and the defendant is not obligated to present witnesses
or testify to establish a defense. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358,
364, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 1073, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368, 375 (1970); Speiser
v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525-26, 78 S. Ct. 1332, 1342, 2 L. Ed.
2d 1460, 1472-73 (1958); State v. Anderson, 127 N.J. 191, 200-01
(1992). While a defendant bears the burden of proof with regard
to an affirmative defense, such a defense can be proven with
evidence presented during the State's case. State v. Chiarello,
69 N.J. Super. 479, 498 (App. Div. 1961), certif. denied, 36
N.J. 301 (1962).
After the State completed presentation of its case, the
trial judge tentatively denied defense counsel's request for a
jury instruction in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:3-7(a) that
defendant could use reasonable force to perform his police
duties. The judge ruled that a use-of-force defense was not
supported by the evidence presented up to that point in the
trial because the record did not contain any evidence of a
necessary element of that defense – that defendant was making an
arrest. The judge offered to instruct the jury on self-defense,
but not use-of-force by a police officer unless evidence was
presented that defendant was attempting to make an arrest. The
11 A-4641-12T4
judge clearly indicated that he was "basing [the ruling] on the
facts that have been submitted so far in this case." He added:
"If something else develops I'll revisit it if [defense counsel]
ask[s] me. As of right now, use of force is not involved in
this case."
Defendant then called witnesses and testified himself,
presenting his version of what had occurred. At the close of
defendant's case, the judge ruled that the foundation for a use-
of-force instruction had been presented in evidence, and he
instructed the jury accordingly before the deliberations began.
Defendant has not argued that the instruction that the judge
gave was erroneous or inadequate.
N.J.S.A. 2C:3-7(a) provides that a police officer's use of
force in the execution of his public duty "is justifiable when
the [officer] is making . . . an arrest and . . . reasonably
believes that such force is immediately necessary to effect a
lawful arrest." Defendant claims he was entitled to a jury
instruction based on the statute without the need to testify
regarding his version of the incident.
When a defendant requests a jury instruction on a defense
in the case, the court should give such an instruction "if . . .
there is a rational basis in the record to give it." State v.
Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 87 (2010); accord State v. Kelly, 97 N.J.
12 A-4641-12T4
178, 200 (1984); State v. Blanks, 313 N.J. Super. 55, 69-70
(App. Div. 1998). However, where a defendant fails to point to
any facts that provide a rational basis from which a jury could
infer that his actions were justified, the trial court may
properly decline to instruct the jury as to that defense of
justification. State v. Josephs, 174 N.J. 44, 102-03 (2002).
Here, the trial judge correctly determined that no rational
basis had been provided to instruct the jury on the use of force
by a police officer at the end of the State's case-in-chief. At
that point, there was no evidence before the jury that defendant
was attempting to arrest either the victim or the unidentified
man who appeared to be intoxicated.
Defendant argues incorrectly that the judge refused to give
the jury instruction he requested unless he testified, thus
violating his constitutional right to remain silent at his
trial. The judge did not impose a condition that defendant
testify. He simply ruled that, at the time defense counsel made
the request, foundational evidence to support the jury
instruction had not been produced in the trial record. That
ruling was correct.
Neither the testimony of the State's witnesses nor the
surveillance video indicated that defendant was arresting the
victim when he struck him with his gun. Rather, the State's
13 A-4641-12T4
evidence indicated an off-duty altercation between defendant and
the victim. The video showed that defendant reacted immediately
to the victim's approach and attempted to push him away.
Defendant was not attempting to apprehend or subdue the victim.
Nor was he arresting the allegedly intoxicated man.
Within seconds of the victim's approach to the area, and
without the victim showing any physical aggression, defendant
drew his gun and pushed the victim. The victim was backing
away. The fact that at some point defendant identified himself
as a police officer did not lend support to his contention that
he was attempting to make an arrest. Nor did defendant submit a
use-of-force report to the police department indicating that he
was attempting to make an arrest when he drew his gun and struck
the victim.
Defendant contends the court "could have found that
[defendant] was in fact acting in an official capacity when he
[]drew his weapon" and that he was "executi[ng] his public duty"
to clear the sidewalk of persons who were causing a disturbance.
However, without foundational evidence supporting defendant's
contention that the victim was interfering with his police
duties and causing a disturbance, and that defendant was trying
to arrest him, a use-of-force charge under the statute was not
warranted. The trial judge correctly declined to give the
14 A-4641-12T4
requested charge at the end of the State's case-in-chief and
waited until an evidential foundation had been presented to the
jury in the defense case.
Defendant argues next that the jury's split verdict shows
it did not understand the elements of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. The jury acquitted defendant of possession of a
weapon for an unlawful purpose and of aggravated assault by
pointing a handgun at another person, and yet it convicted him
of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant claims
the acquittals show the jury did not find all the essential
elements of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
"Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count
in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate
indictment." Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393, 52 S.
Ct. 189, 190, 76 L. Ed. 356, 358 (1932). A jury verdict, even
an inconsistent one, is upheld on appeal if the evidence is
sufficient to establish guilt on the count of conviction.
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 67, 105 S. Ct. 471, 478,
83 L. Ed. 2d 461, 470 (1984). The Supreme Court of New Jersey
has adopted the Dunn/Powell rule of law where a defendant claims
an inconsistent verdict. State v. Banko, 182 N.J. 44, 54
(2004). Reviewing courts may not speculate on whether a jury
verdict that seems inconsistent was the result of a mistake,
15 A-4641-12T4
compromise, or lenity. State v. Muhammad, 182 N.J. 551, 578
(2005).
Relying on an unpublished opinion of this court,2 defendant
contends he is not arguing that the verdict was inconsistent but
that it demonstrates the jury did not understand the law and the
necessary elements of the aggravated assault charge.
The charge of aggravated assault by pointing a handgun
required the State to prove that defendant "[k]nowingly under
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of
human life point[ed] a firearm . . . at or in the direction of
another . . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(4). The jury saw the
surveillance video and could determine from it that there was
insufficient evidence that defendant pointed the gun at the
victim.
With respect to possession of the weapon for an unlawful
purpose, the State was required to prove that defendant had "in
his possession any firearm with a purpose to use it unlawfully
against the person or property of another . . . ." N.J.S.A.
2C:39-4(a)(1). The jury heard testimony that defendant was
legally permitted to carry his gun when he was off-duty. It
could base its acquittal of defendant on that testimony as well
2
Pursuant to Rule 1:36-3, an unpublished opinion does not
constitute precedent and is not binding upon any court.
16 A-4641-12T4
as the absence of evidence other than the assault itself that
defendant had an unlawful purpose in possessing the gun.
On the other hand, the crime of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon required the State to prove that defendant
purposely or knowingly caused or attempted to cause "bodily
injury to another with a deadly weapon." N.J.S.A. 2C:12-
1(b)(2). The video showed defendant removing the gun from his
clothing and, without visible provocation, hitting the victim
with the gun. The victim testified that the blow landed on his
face, causing his nose to bleed and to swell.
The incident happened quickly, and the jury could have
determined that defendant was in lawful possession of his
service weapon but that his use of it to strike the victim in
the face was an unjustified assault with a deadly weapon.
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1(c) provides:
"Deadly weapon" means any firearm or other
weapon, device, instrument, material or
substance, whether animate or inanimate,
which in the manner it is used or is
intended to be used, is known to be capable
of producing death or serious bodily injury
or which in the manner it is fashioned would
lead the victim reasonably to believe it to
be capable of producing death or serious
bodily injury.
The fact that defendant did not fire a shot or point the gun at
the victim did not preclude the jury from determining that
defendant's actions could cause serious injury and that the
17 A-4641-12T4
handgun, a two-and-a-half pound metal object, constituted a
deadly weapon. See State v. Burford, 163 N.J. 16, 18 (2000)
(the term deadly weapon includes a "class of objects having a
wide variety of lawful uses but . . . which may take on the
character of a deadly weapon depending on the circumstances" and
the defendant's intention to use the object as a weapon
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). There was
sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon because of the manner of
his use of the gun to strike the victim.
Finally, defendant argues that we should set aside the
jury's verdict because it was against the weight of the
evidence. He asserts that the victim's testimony was not
credible in denying that he provoked defendant or that he
suffered injury to his nose.
We do not consider a weight-of-the-evidence argument on
appeal unless the appellant moved in the trial court for a new
trial on that ground. R. 2:10-1; State v. Perry, 128 N.J.
Super. 188, 190 (App. Div. 1973), aff’d, 65 N.J. 45 (1974).
Defendant has not provided a record to us indicating that he
made such a post-trial motion. His argument is not cognizable
on appeal.
18 A-4641-12T4
Moreover, it lacks merit. A rational jury could conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt from the video evidence alone that
defendant unjustifiably struck the victim with the hand in which
he held his handgun. An attempt to cause injury satisfies the
assault statutes on which defendant was convicted. N.J.S.A.
2C:12-1(a)(1), (b)(2). The jury had the opportunity to observe
the witnesses' testimony first-hand and the surveillance
recording, and it determined beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant was guilty of the assault charges.
The jury also could reasonably conclude that defendant's
actions constituted an unauthorized exercise of his official
functions as a police officer, that defendant knew his actions
were unauthorized, and that his purpose was to injure another
person. Those findings support a guilty verdict on the charge
of official misconduct. N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2.
Affirmed. Remanded for correction of the judgment of
conviction. We do not retain jurisdiction.
19 A-4641-12T4