State v
Mauti 208 NJ 519 (2017)
DNA on towel not admissible without proper
foundation and chain of custody
A jury found defendant guilty
of third degree aggravated criminal sexual contact and fourth degree criminal
sexual contact and not guilty of first degree aggravated sexual assault and
second degree sexual assault. Defendant is a physician. The complaining witness
is his sister-in-law. The court reverse and remand for a new trial.
The court hold the trial judge
should have excluded a towel containing defendant's semen based on the absence
of competent evidence linking it to the alleged sexual assault. The towel also
constituted inadmissible hearsay by conduct under N.J.R.E. 801(a)(2).
The judge also abused his
discretion by permitting the State to call five fresh-complaint witnesses and
thereafter deciding not to instruct the jury on fresh-complaint testimony.
Defense counsel’s acquiescence to the trial judge’s decision not to charge the
jury on fresh-complaint did not constitute invited error.
Finally, The court conclude
that the trial court properly admitted a redacted version of a letter sent by
defense counsel to the prosecutor as an adopted admission under N.J.R.E.
803(b)(3). Under these circumstances, The court reject defendant’s argument
that defense counsel’s letter falls within the ambit of "plea
negotiations," as that term is used in N.J.R.E. 410. Our analysis is
guided by the federal courts’ review of Fed. R. Evid. 410, the source rule of
N.J.R.E. 410.
As a matter of first
impression in this State, The court adopt the analytical approach used by the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Robertson, 582 F.2d 1356,
1366 (5th Cir. 1978) to determine when interactions between the State’s
representative and defense counsel constitute protected “plea negotiations”
under N.J.R.E. 410. This approach requires a trial judge to determine: (1)
whether the accused exhibited an actual subjective expectation to negotiate a
plea at the time of the discussion; and (2) whether the accused's expectation
was reasonable given the totality of the objective circumstances. The State
bears the burden of proof. Because this two-tiered approach requires a
fact-sensitive analysis, the trial judge should conduct an N.J.R.E. 104 hearing
to resolve any disputed facts. A-3551-12T3
No comments:
Post a Comment