State v. Garajau
| Decision Date | 04 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-2807-18 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RAQUEL GARAJAU, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Before Judges Fasciale and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 17-11-1630.
Patricia B. Quelch argued the cause for appellant (Helmer, Conley & Kasselman, P.A., attorneys; Patricia B. Quelch, of counsel and on the brief).
Carey J. Huff argued the cause for respondent (Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney; Carey J. Huff, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
After a twenty-four-day jury trial at which at least thirty-four witnesses testified, defendant appeals from her sixteen convictions stemming from her role in the death of the victim, who was shot during a robbery committed by her co-defendant boyfriend, Joseph Villani.1 The judge granted defendant's Reyes2 motion dismissing the remaining counts.3 The State had alleged that defendantand her boyfriend conspired to rob and murder the victim, someone they had known, then dispose of the body. The judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate prison term of thirty-three years with thirty years of parole ineligibility.4
On appeal, defendant argues:
We begin by addressing defendant's contentions that the judge made numerous erroneous hearsay rulings, which pertained to statements by a party opponent, N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1), statements by a co-conspirator, N.J.R.E. 803(b)(5), and statements indicative of state of mind, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3).
A trial judge's evidentiary rulings "are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard because, from its genesis, the decision to admit or exclude evidence is one firmly entrusted to the trial [judge's] discretion." State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567, 580 (2018) (quoting Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 383-84 (2010)). We will not "set such rulings aside unless it appears that 'there has been a clear error of judgment.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. J.A.C., 210 N.J. 281, 295 (2012)). Stated differently, this court "must be convinced that 'the trial [judge's] ruling is so wide of the mark that a manifest denial of justice resulted.'" Ibid. (quoting J.A.C., 210 N.J. at 295).
The State introduced into evidence text messages written by defendant about the events leading to the charges. The judge correctly admitted those text messages under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(1). Defendant's evidentiary arguments on appeal, however, mostly pertain to out-of-court statements by other declarants, such as Villani, Niko Kacandes, Tyler Yuhas, John Michael Grier, and Thaissa Borges. As to these individuals, their statements were either introduced under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(5) or N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3).
The co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule provides that a statement may be admissible against a party if the statement is "made at the time the party-opponent and the declarant were participating in a plan to commit a crime or civil wrong and the statement was made in furtherance of that plan." N.J.R.E. 803(b)(5). "The rationale for the co-conspirator exception is that 'because conspirators are substantively liable for the acts of their co-conspirators, they are equally responsible for statements by their confederates to further the unlawful plan.'" State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 402 (2002) (quoting State v. Harris, 298 N.J. Super. 478, 487 (App. Div. 1997)). Applying this exception to the hearsay rule, we see no abuse of discretion.
Any scheme to avoid apprehension and prosecution continues a conspiracy beyond the actual commission of its objective. State v. Soto, 340 N.J. Super. 47, 65 (App. Div. 2001) (), overruled on other grounds, State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494 (2005); State v. Cherry, 289 N.J. Super. 503, 523 (App. Div. 1995) (). Statements concerning "past events may be admissible if they are'in furtherance' of the conspiracy and 'serve some current purpose, such as to provide cohesiveness, provide reassurances to a co-conspirator, or prompt one not a member of the conspiracy to respond in a way that furthers the goals of the conspiracy.'" Savage, 172 N.J. at 403 (quoting State v. Taccetta, 301 N.J. Super. 227, 253 (App. Div. 1997)).
To qualify for admission under the co-conspirator exception, three conditions must be met: "(1) the statement must have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy; (2) the statement must have been made during the course of the conspiracy; and (3) there must be 'evidence, independent of the hearsay, of the existence of the conspiracy and defendant's relationship to it.'" Id. at 402 (quoting State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500, 509-10 (1984)).
Kacandes testified about a conversation he had with defendant and Villani where defendant was alleged to have said: "You should have heard how hard he hit the ground." Defendant maintains that this statement was "not made in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit armed robbery," "made after that conspiracy ended and [was] not made with the purpose to further any conspiracy," and "not made to create an alibi, to conceal evidence, to hinderapprehension, or to recruit Kacandes to participate in the conspiracy," and thus, the judge arguably erred by allowing into evidence the testimony.
Here, the purported purpose of defendant and Villani's conversation with Kacandes was to provide reassurance and to ensure his silence. Kacandes was aware of what happened earlier in the day with David Ardizzone, who was asked by Villani to move the car, and Anthony Eugenio, who left with Ardizzone from the garage after Ardizzone moved the car, and felt uneasy about the situation. In fact, aside from Kacandes's testimony, there was evidence that defendant texted Villani, "[Kacandes is] freaking out on me." By telling Kacandes that they just "robbed [the victim] for pot and money" and that he was "coming back soon to pick up his car," they were reassuring Kacandes that the person they had robbed was still alive.
Defendant argues the judge erred by admitting into evidence the calls between Yuhas and Villani as statements in furtherance of a conspiracy because defendant contends the "substance of those conversations was between Villani and Yuhas."
"The principal question in the 'in furtherance' issue is whether the statement promoted, or was intended to promote, the goals of the conspiracy."United States v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., 871 F.2d 1181, 1199 (2d Cir. 1989). "[S]tatements may be found to be 'in furtherance' of the conspiracy . . . if they 'prompt the listener to respond in a way that facilitates the carrying out of criminal activity.'" Ibid. (quoting United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 1987)).
Yuhas's conversations with Villani were made in furtherance of the conspiracy to rob the victim and conceal the murder. Villani was trying to convince Yuhas that the car he had moved was not connected to the victim whatsoever and urged him to stay quiet. Defendant claims that the substance of the conversations was between Yuhas and Villani, but there was evidence that she was present for every phone call and, at one point, even got on the phone to speak with Yuhas herself.
Defendant argues that the judge erred by admitting into evidence the text messages between Villani and Grier. Specifically, the texts that were exchanged when Grier inquired about purchasing marijuana from Villani, and then later met with Villani and defendant to make the purchase. However, these texts were made in furtherance of defendant and Villani's conspiracy to distribute marijuana, were made during the course of the conspiracy to distributemarijuana, and there was independent evidence, aside from those particular text messages, of the existence of the conspiracy and defendant's relationship to it. Indeed, defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial