State v. Rose
206 N.J. 141, 2011 N.J. LEXIS 628, 19 A.3d 985 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence of a defendant's prior uncharged crime against the same victim is admissible for non-propensity purposes such as proving motive, intent, and plan. The common law doctrine of res gestae is no longer a valid independent basis for admitting evidence in New Jersey; all such evidence must now be analyzed under the codified Rules of Evidence.
Facts:
- In 1995, Zarik Rose was incarcerated on charges of attempting to murder Charles Mosley.
- While in jail, Rose told fellow inmate Salvatore Puglia that he did not want Mosley to testify against him and that 'plan B was to get him whacked.'
- In 1997, still in jail, Rose offered another inmate, Larry Graves, money and drugs to kill Mosley before his upcoming trial.
- Rose provided Graves with Mosley's address, phone number, and a plan for Graves to gain entry to Mosley's home office by feigning interest in a vehicle for sale.
- Rose and Graves established that Graves would use the code phrase 'sold the car' to confirm that Mosley had been killed.
- After being released from jail, Graves went to Mosley's home and, during an altercation, struck and choked Mosley to death on November 22, 1997.
- Graves then called Rose and informed him that he had 'sold the car.'
- As a result of Mosley's death, the attempted murder charges against Rose were dropped, and he was released from jail.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in Gloucester County indicted Zarik Rose on charges of being an accomplice to purposeful murder and felony murder.
- Prior to trial, the trial court held a hearing and ruled that evidence of Rose's prior indictment for attempted murder and his related conversations in jail were admissible.
- A jury convicted Rose on both murder charges.
- The trial court sentenced Rose to forty-five years in prison.
- Rose appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed his conviction.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted a limited certification to review only the issue of the admissibility of the evidence of his prior indictment and incarceration.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of evidence that a defendant was previously indicted and incarcerated for attempting to murder the victim, in the defendant's subsequent trial for that same victim's murder, violate New Jersey Rule of Evidence 404(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice LaVecchia
No, the admission of evidence about the defendant's prior indictment and incarceration for attempting to murder the victim does not violate New Jersey Rule of Evidence 404(b). Such evidence is admissible when offered for a proper non-propensity purpose, such as proving motive, intent, or plan. The court's reasoning proceeded under the four-prong Cofield test for 404(b) evidence. The evidence was highly relevant (Prong 1) to the material issues of Rose's motive (to prevent Mosley from testifying), his intent (that Graves kill, not just persuade, Mosley), and his plan, all of which the defense had placed in dispute. The prior indictment and incarceration constituted clear and convincing evidence (Prong 3) of the underlying acts. Although prejudicial, the evidence's probative value was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect (Prong 4), as it was essential for the jury to understand why Rose would solicit Mosley's murder; without it, the State's case would have a 'huge gap.' The trial court mitigated the prejudice by providing clear and repeated limiting instructions to the jury. The court also held that the common law doctrine of res gestae is no longer a viable feature of New Jersey jurisprudence and should be abandoned in favor of analyses under the formal Rules of Evidence.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Rivera-Soto
No, the admission of the challenged evidence was proper under N.J.R.E. 404(b). However, the majority's decision to abolish the doctrine of res gestae is unnecessary dicta and therefore should not be considered precedential. The case was fully resolved through the 404(b) analysis, making the discussion of res gestae an advisory opinion on an issue not essential to the case's disposition. Furthermore, the majority is incorrect to discard the doctrine, as res gestae (evidence intrinsic to the crime itself) is a fundamentally different concept from N.J.R.E. 404(b) (evidence of 'other' crimes or acts). The majority's adoption of an 'intrinsic evidence' test is simply a rebranding of res gestae.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and modernizes evidence law in New Jersey. Primarily, it formally abolishes the archaic and often confusing common law doctrine of res gestae, mandating that trial courts ground their evidentiary rulings in the specific, codified Rules of Evidence. This promotes greater analytical rigor, consistency, and predictability. The ruling reinforces that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible under Rule 404(b) for crucial non-propensity purposes like motive, especially when the prior act provides the direct context for the charged crime. By adopting a narrow, two-part test for 'intrinsic' evidence, the court ensures that the protective framework and limiting instructions required by a 404(b) analysis will be the default for nearly all uncharged misconduct evidence.
