State v. Gadsden
| Decision Date | 04 August 1997 |
| Citation | 697 A.2d 187,303 N.J.Super. 491 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Tyrone GADSDEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, for defendant-appellant (Lucille M. Rosano, Designated Counsel, of counsel, and on the brief).
Edward M. Neafsey, Assistant Attorney General, Acting Prosecutor of Union County, for plaintiff-respondent (Allan C. Young, Special Deputy Attorney General/Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel, and on the brief).
Before Judges KING and LOFTUS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
LOFTUS, J.A.D.
This case involves the issue of whether evidence which was obtained by Hillside police officers during a search incident to an arrest with a warrant in contiguous Newark should have been suppressed because the officers were outside their jurisdictional limits as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152. We conclude that the search was not constitutionally infirm and the convictions must stand.
On June 22, 1993, the Grand Jury of Union County returned Indictment No. 93-06-00842-I. It charged defendant, Tyrone Gadsden (Gadsden), with the following offenses on February 20, 1993:(1) armed robbery of Regina Nelson, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count one); (2) armed robbery of Placidi Ceus, contrary On July 13, 1993, the Union County Grand Jury returned Indictment No. 93-07-00941-I which charged defendant, Tyrone Gadsden, with the following offenses on March 20, 1993:(1) armed robbery of Jackes Jacques and/or Jorge Ferreira, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count one); (2) possession of a handgun for unlawful purposes, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (count two); (3) possession of a handgun without a permit, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (count three); and (4) possession of an imitation firearm for unlawful purposes, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4e (count four).
to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count two); (3) armed robbery of Mirlande Ceus, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count three); (4) unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (count four); and (5) possession of a firearm for unlawful purposes, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (count five).
On July 13, 1993, the Union County Grand Jury returned Indictment No. 93-07-00942-I which charged defendant, Tyrone Gadsden with the following offenses on April 11, 1993:(1) armed robbery of Michelle Evaristo and/or Angella Edie, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count one); (2) possession of a handgun for unlawful purposes, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (count two); (3) unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (count three); and (4) possession of an imitation firearm for unlawful purposes, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4e (count four).
On September 14, 1993, the Union County Grand Jury returned Indictment No. 93-09-01210-I against defendant, Tyrone Gadsden, charging him with the following offenses on May 1, 1993:(1) armed robbery of Robert Craft, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count one); (2) armed robbery of Yves Exume, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count two); (3) armed robbery of Salvatore DeFranco, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count three); (4) unlawful possession of a handgun without a permit, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (count four); and (5) possession of a handgun for unlawful purposes, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (count five). Gadsden At the motion to suppress, Gadsden contended that all evidence which had been seized during his arrest should be suppressed because he was arrested by the Hillside police outside of their jurisdiction in violation of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152. The evidence included his and co-defendant Vernon Harris' statements to police, reports relating to the seizure of his vehicle, surveillance and investigation results of Gadsden and Harris, as well as fingerprint and photographic identifications of Gadsden and Harris.
pleaded not guilty to the charges and various pre-trial motions were heard.
The judge denied Gadsden's request for a Wade hearing because he did not meet the preliminary criteria of impermissible suggestiveness under State v. Ortiz, 203 N.J.Super. 518, 522, 497 A.2d 552 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 335, 508 A.2d 212 (1985). After a Miranda hearing, the judge ruled that Gadsden's statement of May 5, 1993, to Union Township police was admissible. The judge also denied the motion to suppress.
Gadsden then retracted his pleas of not guilty and entered pleas of guilty to the following crimes: (1) counts one, two and three of Union County Indictment Number 93-06-00842-I, charging armed robbery of Regina Nelson, Placide Ceus, and Mirlande Ceus; (2) count one of Union County Indictment Number 93-07-00941-I, charging armed robbery of Jackes Jacques and/or Jorge Ferreira; (3) count one of Union County Indictment Number 93-07-00942I, charging armed robbery of Michelle Evaristo and/or Angella Edie; and (4) counts one, two and three of Union County Indictment Number 93-09-1210-I, charging armed robbery of Robert Craft, Yves Exume and Salvatore DeFranco. Defendant entered a conditional plea pursuant to R. 3:9-3(f), preserving his right to appeal from the adverse decision on the Miranda hearing and the motion to suppress.
In exchange for his pleas of guilty, the State agreed to dismiss all other counts of the four indictments, and to recommend an aggregate sentence of twenty-five years with a twelve-year parole disqualification which was to run concurrently with any parole Gadsden was sentenced to an aggregate term of twenty-five years with a twelve-year parole ineligibility term on Indictments Number 93-07-00941-I, 93-07-00942-I, 93-06-00842-I and 93-09-01210-I. All sentences were to run concurrently with each other. A $50 V.C.C.B. penalty was imposed on each of the eight robbery counts for a total of $400. As a condition of the sentence, Gadsden agreed to testify truthfully against co-defendant Vernon Harris. Defendant was given 404 days jail credit. All remaining counts of the indictments were dismissed. Gadsden appeals.
violation. Gadsden also agreed to testify truthfully against Vernon Harris at trial.
On appeal, he contends:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOT BEEN ILLEGALLY ARRESTED; CONSEQUENTLY, ALL EVIDENCE OBTAINED AS A RESULT OF THE ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED. U.S. CONST., AMEND.IV; N.J. CONST., (1947) ART. 1, PARA. 7.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING DEFENDANT'S IN-CUSTODY STATEMENT TO UNION POLICE IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND NEW JERSEY COMMON LAW. U.S. CONST., AMEND. V. AND XIV.
DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD BE REDUCED ON APPEAL.
For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we conclude that these contentions are non-meritorious. We affirm.
Both the State and the defense agree that the following statement of facts is an accurate representation of the testimony elicited at the motion to suppress. They also agree that the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are accurate with regard to the motion to suppress. The State only disputes Gadsden's contention that his arrest was illegal. A. Motion to Suppress
On January 3, 1993, Gadsden's motion to suppress all evidence obtained due to his illegal arrest was heard by Judge Spatola. The evidence indicated that on May 3, 1993, the Hillside police were investigating a series of alleged armed robberies. Three armed robberies had occurred at fast food restaurants in Hillside, New Jersey. A fourth armed robbery was alleged to have occurred in Union, New Jersey. The Hillside police had received a tip that Gadsden was involved in a series of armed robberies in the area, and were informed by Union police that a black Cadillac had been used in the Union armed robbery.
With this information, Hillside police officers travelled to Gadsden's residence in contiguous Newark. At some point during the day, they ran a motor-vehicle check on the license number of a black Cadillac which was outside his residence and determined that the vehicle belonged to defendant. Upon returning to the Hillside Police Department, Hillside officers telephoned the Union Police Department and gave them defendant's name, along with two other names, as possible suspects in the Union armed robbery.
Later that same day, a photograph of Gadsden was shown to three of the alleged victims/witnesses of the Hillside armed robberies. Gadsden's photograph was positively identified by one of the individuals. On May 3, 1993, an arrest warrant for Gadsden was obtained from the Hillside Municipal Court.
Hillside officers went to Gadsden's residence in Newark and arrested him. He was taken to the Hillside Police Station where he was later charged with the offenses in the four indictments. Defendant's car was seized and impounded at the Hillside Police Department.
On May 4, 1993, Gadsden gave oral and written statements to the Hillside police implicating himself and Vernon Harris in the February 20, March 20, and April 11, 1993 armed robberies in Hillside. The following day, May 5, 1993, he gave oral and written statements to the Union Police implicating himself and Harris in the May 1, 1993 armed robbery in Union.
Separate photographic arrays containing Gadsden's and Harris' photographs were shown to victims/witnesses in the other Hillside armed robberies. Comparisons of Gadsden's and Harris' fingerprints with fingerprints found at the scene of the Union armed robbery were positive.
The defense argued that the Hillside police were clearly in violation of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152, which limits police jurisdiction to the boundaries of their own municipality. The defense contended that the Hillside police should have enlisted the assistance of the Newark Police Department, the Essex County Sheriff and the Essex County Prosecutor's Office...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barker, 22383-0-II.
...to technical violations of the statutes governing search warrants, where no constitutional violation is involved."); State v. Gadsden, 303 N.J.Super. 491, 697 A.2d 187, 193 ("New Jersey courts have held that the exclusionary rule is to be applied only in cases in which evidence has been sei......
-
State v. White
...jurisdiction or the consent search because it did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. See State v. Gadsden, 303 N.J.Super. 491, 503-505, 697 A.2d 187 (App.Div.1997). The same applies to the seizure of the evidence. Id. at 503, 697 A.2d 187; Commonwealth v. O'Shea, supra (56......
-
People v. Nieto
...suppression of the statements. (See, State v Bonds, 98 Wash 2d 1, 653 P2d 1024 [1982], cert denied 464 US 831; see also, State v Gadsden, 303 NJ Super 491, 697 A2d 187, cert denied 152 NJ 187, 704 A2d 17 [unauthorized arrest does not require suppression of evidence where there is no constit......
-
State v. MacRae
...N.J.S.A. 40A:14-152 by pursuing defendant and Sosa into Wallington and subsequently investigating. Relying on State v. Gadsden, 303 N.J. Super. 491 (App. Div. 1997), the judge found that the officers' violation was procedural and not constitutional, and therefore did not warrant the exclusi......