STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HARRY C. MASON (7-16, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0096-16T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
HARRY C. MASON,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted October 18, 2017 – Decided November 1, 2017
Before Judges Alvarez and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County,
Municipal Appeal No. 7-16.
Mark J. Molz, attorney for appellant.
Scott A. Coffina, Burlington County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Nicole Handy,
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Harry C. Mason appeals from the Law Division's
order entered after a de novo trial on the record. The Law
Division judge found him guilty of simple assault, in violation
of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a). After reviewing the record in light of
the contentions advanced on appeal and the applicable law, we
affirm.
Teresa McWilliams was at the hospital picking up her daughter,
Danielle McWilliams, and Danielle's1 newborn baby. Teresa's son,
Mark McWilliams, was with her. Defendant Harry Mason, father of
the newborn, also arrived at the hospital in the expectation that
he was bringing Danielle and the baby home with him. When Mark
and defendant got into a fight in the valet parking area, Teresa
hit defendant in the back in an attempt to pull defendant off
Mark. Defendant turned around and struck Teresa in the face,
knocking her unconscious with the blow.
Defendant was charged with two counts of simple assault, in
violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a), against Teresa and Mark. After
a trial in municipal court, the judge found defendant not guilty
of the simple assault against Mark, but guilty of the charged
assault against Teresa. The judge stated that he had no doubts
as to the credibility of Teresa, who testified that she saw her
son getting beat up and she was trying to pull defendant off of
him. He continued, "I don't believe for one minute [defendant]
didn't know it was [Teresa]." The judge also rejected defendant's
1
We use first names for clarity and the ease of the reader. We
mean no disrespect.
2 A-0096-16T4
argument of self-defense, finding that "[d]efendant turned around,
saw who it was, and hit her in the face, knocking her out."
Defendant appealed to the Law Division, and on August 4,
2016, Judge Thomas P. Kelly conducted a de novo trial on the record
and issued an oral decision. The judge noted the credibility
findings made by the municipal court judge and gave them the
required deference. See State v. Robertson, 228 N.J. 138 (2017);
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (1999); State v. Johnson, 42 N.J.
146 (1964). In his review of the record, Judge Kelly found it was
evident that defendant intended to strike Teresa. He did not find
sufficient evidence to support self-defense. Defendant's appeal
was denied.
In this appeal, defendant reiterates the arguments made to
the Law Division, contending that:
POINT I: THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING AS TO
THE CREDIBILITY OF MARK MCWILLIAM[S] AND
THEREFORE ON TRIAL DE NOVO, THE COURT SHOULD
NOT HAVE ACCEPTED CREDIBILITY PARTICULARLY
BASED ON THE ADMISSION OF FALSE TESTIMONY.
POINT II: HARRY C. MASON ESTABLISHED THE
ELEMENTS OF SELF DEFENSE.
POINT III: STATE FAILED TO PROVE INTENT TO
ASSAULT TERESA MCWILLIAMS.
Our scope of review is limited to whether the conclusions of
the Law Division judge "could reasonably have been reached on
sufficient credible evidence present in the record." Johnson,
3 A-0096-16T4
supra, 42 N.J. at 162. We do "not undertake to alter concurrent
findings of facts and credibility determinations made by two lower
courts absent a very obvious and exceptional showing of error."
Robertson, supra, 228 N.J. at 148 (quoting Locurto, supra, 157
N.J. at 474).
Appellate courts give substantial deference to a trial
judge's findings of fact. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12
(1998) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65
N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). These findings should only be disturbed
when there is no doubt that they are inconsistent with the
relevant, credible evidence presented below, such that a manifest
denial of justice would result from their preservation. Id. at
412. We owe no deference to the trial judge's legal conclusions.
Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378
(1995).
Judge Kelly properly conducted a de novo trial by reviewing
the transcript and considering the written briefs and oral
arguments of counsel. In giving due regard to the municipal court
judge's credibility findings, Judge Kelly found beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of the assault on
Teresa. He determined that defendant had enough time to look at
Teresa and decide whether to strike her. The judge stated: "It's
4 A-0096-16T4
not even an issue[,] . . . [defendant] chose to hit her," which
is "an assault by all definitions."
We discern no basis to disturb the trial judge's decision.
He thoroughly reviewed the facts and we are satisfied there is
sufficient credible evidence in the record to substantiate his
findings. We conclude that defendant's remaining arguments are
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and affirm substantially for the
thoughtful reasons expressed by Judge Kelly.
Affirmed.
5 A-0096-16T4