State v. Allen
| Docket Number | A-55-21 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2023 |
| Parties | State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dante C. Allen, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Argued January 17, 2023
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Margaret McLane, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender attorney; Margaret McLane, of counsel and on the briefs, and Glenn D. Kassman, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Alecia Woodard, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Raymond S Santiago, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney; Alecia Woodard, of counsel and on the briefs, and Monica do Outeiro Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the briefs).
Alexander Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom and Jeanne LoCicero, on the brief).
Raymond Brown argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; CJ Griffin, on the brief).
Frank Muroski, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Frank Muroski, of counsel and on the brief).
PATTERSON, J., writing for the Court.
In this appeal, the Court considers whether defendant Dante Allen was denied a fair trial because the trial court permitted a detective to present lay opinion testimony in which he narrated a video recording.
On November 4, 2015, defendant was speaking with a friend on the sidewalk. According to defendant's trial testimony, he was carrying a handgun that he had recently acquired after a confrontation with a gang member made him fear for his safety. Officer Terrence McGhee of the Asbury Park Police Department, who suspected defendant had a weapon based on his behavior when McGhee passed in a patrol car, approached defendant and asked to speak. According to McGhee, defendant ran into a vacant lot, turned around, raised his gun, and fired at McGhee, who was not hit. McGhee testified that he then fired at and wounded defendant. Defendant testified that he ran toward the back of an abandoned building "to throw the gun on the roof." According to defendant, he He stated that he never pointed the gun at McGhee. Defendant was arrested and taken to a hospital. Shortly thereafter, Detective Michael Campanella, the lead forensic detective in the case, arrived at the scene. He inspected the gun and reviewed two surveillance videos from nearby buildings.
During defendant's trial, Officer McGhee testified, in part narrating the videos as they were played for the jury. Campanella testified later, describing the steps taken in the investigation. After the State indicated its intent to replay the surveillance videos that the jury had already viewed during McGhee's testimony, defense counsel objected. The State countered that Campanella would explain how the video "led him [to find] evidence, such as the shell casings and the bullets." The trial court overruled the objection. As the videos were replayed, Campanella made references to the defendant firing or discharging the gun and turning toward the officer. The State also presented the expert testimony of Randolph Toth of the State Police Laboratory Ballistics Unit, who opined that the weapon had not discharged accidentally the night of the incident. Defendant testified and denied that he had shot at McGhee or had any intent to injure the officer. He maintained that the gun discharged accidentally.
The jury convicted defendant of attempted murder and other offenses. The Appellate Division found that the trial court had abused its discretion when it permitted Campanella to narrate the surveillance video but held that the error was harmless and affirmed. The Court granted certification. 251 N.J. 33 (2022).
HELD: The Court disagrees with the Appellate Division's conclusion that the trial court should have excluded all the detective's narration of the surveillance video. The trial court properly permitted the detective to testify about the manner in which he used the surveillance video to guide his investigation. Applying principles stated today in State v. Watson,___N.J.___(2023) (slip op. at 46-60), the detective's testimony opining that the video showed defendant turning and firing his weapon should have been excluded from evidence. However, that error was harmless given the strength of the State's evidence.
1. The Court reviews N.J.R.E. 701, which governs the admission of lay opinion testimony, and recent decisions in which the Court has applied Rule 701 to an officer's testimony about a photo or video relating to an offense. In State v. Higgs, the Court barred the lay opinion of a law enforcement officer who was not present at a shooting and testified that an object depicted in a surveillance video appeared to be a firearm. 253 N.J. 333, 365-67 (2023). In Watson, the Court disapproved of portions of an officer's narration testimony reflecting his subjective belief of what occurred in a video, including observations about alleged efforts by the suspect not to touch surfaces during the robbery.___ N.J. at___(slip op. at 58-59). But the Court held that in appropriate circumstances, the testimony of a witness who was not present when a video was recorded may satisfy the evidence rules. Id. at___(slip op. at 49-56). (pp. 16-21)
2. To convict defendant of attempted murder in this case, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause McGhee's death. It was the jury's province to decide whether defendant had purposely fired his gun at McGhee or was attempting to dispose of the gun when it accidentally discharged. Most of Campanella's testimony regarding the surveillance video pertained to the role of the video in the investigation of the crime scene. He explained how he used the video to identify areas that he considered likely to contain evidence relevant to his investigation. That testimony included two categories of admissible evidence: fact testimony from a forensic investigator about the steps he took at the crime scene, and testimony rationally based on the witness's perception and helpful to the trier of fact. To the extent that the Appellate Division found those portions of Campanella's testimony to violate N.J.R.E. 701, the Court disagrees. (pp. 21-23) 3. Campanella also testified, however, that the "white blip" on the video indicated "the defendant firing the handgun"; that a frame depicted the suspect "turning towards the officer"; that another view of the first muzzle flash showed "where the suspect has turned and discharged the first round"; and that the video showed "where [the suspect] was standing when he fired the round." Instead of commenting that the surveillance video showed the discharge of a weapon at a particular location, which would have constituted proper narration, Campanella testified about his view of defendant's actions. Those comments, which supported the State's position as to sharply disputed facts, do not constitute either proper fact testimony or admissible lay opinion testimony, and it was error to admit them. (pp. 23-24)
4. The Court finds that error harmless, however. First, defendant admitted he was both the person McGhee confronted and the person in the video. Second, defendant made several key admissions that supported the State's theory that he shot at McGhee to avoid arrest. Third, defendant admitted that his handgun discharged as he "turned to the side" and could "see McGhee out of my peripheral," demonstrating that he was aware of McGhee's proximity when the gun fired. Fourth, McGhee testified that as defendant ran into the vacant lot, he turned 180 degrees, raised the handgun, and fired it at McGhee from a distance of 18 to 24 feet. Fifth, the surveillance video shows McGhee approaching defendant, defendant running away with McGhee in close pursuit, defendant making a left turn near a building into a vacant lot, and a flash of light from defendant's location immediately after he turned. Sixth, the State's expert witness on ballistics supported McGhee's version of events. In light of the evidence, Campanella's improper comments that defendant turned toward the officer and that he "fired" and "discharged" the handgun were not "clearly capable of producing an unjust result" under Rule 2:10-2. (pp. 24-28)
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS, dissenting, agrees with the majority's assessment of which portions of Campanella's testimony were admissible and which were inadmissible but does not agree that the error in allowing the inadmissible testimony was harmless. Justice Pierre-Louis explains that the jury was tasked with resolving one question regarding the attempted murder charge -- whether defendant intentionally fired at Officer McGhee. Noting that Campanella's opinion testimony, as the lead forensic detective in the case, invaded the province of the jury on the sole disputed issue, Justice Pierre-Louis concludes that the error in admitting that testimony was capable of producing an unjust result.
JUSTICES SOLOMON and FASCIALE and JUDGE SABATINO (temporarily assigned) join in JUSTICE PATTERSON's opinion. JUSTICE PIERRE-LOUIS filed a dissent, in which CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICE WAINER APTER join.
Defendant Dante Allen appeals his conviction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial