State Of N.J. v. Belliard
| Decision Date | 05 August 2010 |
| Citation | 999 A.2d 1212,415 N.J.Super. 51 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,v.Jesse BELLIARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Steven D. Altman argued the cause for appellant (Benedict & Altman, attorneys; Philip Nettl and Mr. Altman, New Brunswick, on the brief).
Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Mr. Rosenbach, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges CARCHMAN, PARRILLO and ASHRAFI.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
CARCHMAN, P.J.A.D.
Defendant Jesse Belliard appeals from an August 17, 2007 judgment of conviction for first-degree robbery N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; first-degree felony murder N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3); and aggravated manslaughter N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a). Defendant now asserts that the trial judge committed a number of errors, which prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial. We agree that the judge erred as to the charge on causation and conclude that the error was sufficient to warrant a new trial as to the felony murder conviction. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial on that charge. As to the other convictions, we affirm.
On February 26, 2006, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Alejandro Morales and Francisco Urbina Serrano were walking down Hale Street in New Brunswick. Several people were standing in front of 175 Hale Street, and one of the individuals approached Serrano, asking for a cigarette. Serrano was, at that time, standing between two houses, in front of an alley and four concrete steps that led to a concrete walkway below. The vertical drop of the steps was approximately thirty-three inches.
While Serrano was standing in front of the alley, another individual, later identified as defendant, held Serrano by the shirt, struck him and pushed him down the steps into the alley. Defendant fled immediately thereafter. Other witnesses stated, however, that a group of people were involved in beating Serrano both before and after he fell down the steps.
New Brunswick police officers William Contreras and Ronnie Cheng arrived at Hale Street only a minute or two after the incident. At that time, Serrano was “laying in his son's lap ... and ... was unresponsive....” Morales provided officer Contreras with a physical description of the assailants, and Contreras communicated the information over the police radio.
The police also identified two witnesses to the assault-Stephanie Contreras and Eleidie Torres. Torres was interviewed at 8:03 a.m. and at 9:45 p.m. on February 26th, and she stated that when she and Contreras arrived on Hale Street, prior to the incident, defendant told the girls to get out of the area because “[t]hey had to handle some business.” Torres further stated that she saw defendant strike Serrano in the face, and Serrano fell down the steps. Contreras was interviewed at 11:36 p.m. on February 26th, and she stated that she saw defendant Defendant then “hit him in the stomach, turned him around and, to the side,” and pushed him down the steps.
Five police officers-three investigators and two uniformed officers-went to defendant's home to speak with him about the crime. The police officers explained to defendant, who was seventeen years old, and defendant's mother, Judy Tajada, “what was going on[,]” and defendant and his mother were taken to the police station in two separate cars. Defendant was not placed in handcuffs and was not under arrest.
When defendant arrived at the police station, he was interviewed by Sergeant Investigator Ivan Scott, Detective Rodney Blount and Detective Daniel Dominguez, to translate for defendant's mother. At the beginning of the interview and prior to defendant being read his Miranda 1 rights, Judy Tajada wanted to know what had happened. The police did not answer her question, but stated, “we'll go through everything, there's some stuff I [got to] do first anyway so, we'll, we'll go through it.” The detectives then informed defendant and his mother of defendant's Miranda rights, and defendant and his mother waived their rights. At no point during the interview was defendant told that he was under arrest.
Defendant then made the following statement:
Defendant described the person who incited the robbery as a Dominican man, Jesus Tejada. Defendant also stated, inconsistently, that he saw Serrano fall into the other person's arms, but then also stated that he did not see what happened when Serrano fell because he “wanted to watch [his] back [to] make sure the other dude didn't attack [him]....”
While defendant gave his statement, Detective Dominguez translated the conversation to defendant's mother, and defendant asked, Detective Dominguez replied, “No. Cause you could listen and I have no reason to lie.” Nonetheless, defendant communicated to his mother throughout the interview in Spanish.
Also during the interview, defendant's mother stated that she When the police were questioning the veracity of defendant's statements, defendant stated, “Yo like for real man, ya'll need to stop this cause I'm just about to stop saying, talking, whatever and ya'll can just lock me up to do whatever you got to do, like for real, I have no reason to lie to anyone.”
As a result of the fall, Serrano suffered fractures on the right and left side of his skull, as well as the base of his skull. These caused severe brain hemorrhage and craniocerebral injuries, and Serrano died as a result of these injuries.
Following his being indicted, defendant filed a motion “to suppress [his] statement and all evidence derived from his illegal arrest.” After the hearing, at which Sergeant Scott, Detective Selesky, Detective Blount, defendant's mother and defendant testified, the judge determined that it was “at least arguable that he was saying that he wanted to stop talking[,]” when defendant stated that the police could “lock [him] up.” As a result, the police had a duty to “stop questioning him and to reconfirm that he was willing to speak to them and to readvise him of his Miranda rights, which they did not do[.]” Therefore, defendant's statements were admissible only up to that point in the interview. However, despite the Miranda violation, the judge determined that defendant's statements were given voluntarily, and the remainder of defendant's statements were available to impeach defendant's credibility if defendant was to testify at trial.
Defendant's trial was held in July and August 2007. At trial, the State first proffered Officer Contreras, and he testified to Morales's account of the attack on Serrano. The State also played a videotape of defendant's redacted interview with Sergeant Scott.
Stephanie Contreras and Eleidie Torres also testified, but both stated that their earlier statements to the police were not true and that they were scared or coerced into making their statements implicating defendant. Contreras and Torres also claimed to be drunk on the night of February 26th. However, the State played an audiotape of Stephanie's interview with the police, as well as a redacted audiotape of Eleidie's statements to the police, which were admitted substantively, as prior inconsistent statements.
Defendant acknowledged pushing Serrano. His primary defense was that he had no intent to rob Serrano, and he “wanted nothing to do with the robbery,” but “merely pushed and ran....” Defendant's other defense was that “the injuries [to Serrano] occurred ... after [defendant] had left the scene.”
Defendant was found guilty of first-degree felony murder and second-degree robbery, but acquitted of first-degree robbery and aggravated manslaughter. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that the judge should have suppressed defendant's entire statement to the police, that the judge did not correctly charge the jury and the judge erred in an evidentiary ruling. The judge denied defendant's motion.
The judge then merged defendant's robbery and felony murder convictions and sentenced defendant to a term of thirty years imprisonment, with thirty years parole ineligibility.
On appeal, defendant raises the following issues:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kulgod
...... defense counsel-who did not object to the charge. State. v. Belliard, 415 N.J.Super. 51, 66 (App. Div. 2010). (explaining where "there is a failure to object, it may. be presumed that the instructions were ......
-
State ex rel. A.A.
...the mother took an "active role in directing her son to ‘answer the officer's questions.’ "); see also State v. Belliard, 415 N.J. Super. 51, 80-81, 999 A.2d 1212 (2010) (after the administration of Miranda warnings in the presence of the mother and the juvenile, the mother "unequivocally s......
-
Blount v. Davis
...our colleagues in State v. Belliard, 415 N.J.Super. 51 (App. Div. 2010), reached a different result, and we subscribe to their reasoning. In Belliard, the defendant was convicted first-degree robbery and felony murder. Id. at 60. In his appeal, the defendant argued, among other things, the ......
-
State v. Habel, DOCKET NO. A-1473-15T4
...of discretion standard. State v. Gorthy, 226 N.J. 516, 539 (2016); State v. J.M., 225 N.J. 146, 157 (2016). See also State v. Belliard, 415 N.J. Super. 51, 87 (App. Div. 2010) (holding appellate courts "review a trial judge's evidentiary determinations under an abuse of discretion standard,......