State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 23 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. A-4544-19 |
| Citation | 474 N.J.Super. 366,288 A.3d 464 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William HILL, a/k/a Raheem Hill, Ricky Hill, Russell Johnson, Jerry Jones, Raheem Sander, Raheem Sanders, Joseph Sanders, Bruce Strickland, Bruce Strictland, Andrew Young, Andy Young, and Steven Young, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
John P. Flynn, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Ashley Brooks, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Patrick R. McAvaddy, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Esther Suarez, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney; Patrick R. McAvaddy, of counsel and on the briefs).
Catlin A. Davis, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney; Catlin A. Davis, of counsel and on the brief).
Doris Cheung argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, PC, attorneys; Doris Cheung, on the brief).
Ronald K. Chen argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Rutgers Constitutional Rights Clinic, attorneys; Alexander Shalom, Newark, and Jeanne M. LoCicero, of counsel and on the brief; Ronald K. Chen, on the brief).
Before Judges Sumners, Geiger and Susswein.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SUSSWEIN, J.A.D.
Defendant, William Hill, appeals from his jury trial convictions for carjacking and witness tampering. He contends the witness tampering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a), is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The statutory framework defendant challenges on appeal provides that a witness tampering offense is committed if a person knowingly engages in conduct which a reasonable person would believe would cause a witness or informant to do one or more specified actions, such as testify falsely or withhold testimony.1
Defendant contends the "reasonable person" feature renders the statute unconstitutional and, to avoid constitutional infirmity, the statute must be construed to require the State to prove the defendant knew his or her conduct would cause a prohibited result. Aside from the constitutional issue, defendant contends the assistant prosecutor committed misconduct during summation and the trial court erred by admitting arrest photos into evidence.
After carefully examining the relevant precedents in light of the arguments of the parties and amici, we conclude N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a) is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor impermissibly vague. We decline to embrace a new rule that categorically prohibits the Legislature from using an objective "reasonable person" test to determine a defendant's culpability. We also reject defendant's trial error contentions and, therefore, affirm his convictions.
The following facts were elicited at trial. On the morning of October 31, 2018, the victim left her car running while she went back into her house to retrieve a sweater. When she returned to her car one or two minutes later, she noticed a "figure" in the vehicle. The victim ran to her car, opened the door, and told the man to get out. The man put the vehicle in reverse while the door was still open. To avoid getting hit by the door, the victim jumped into the vehicle. She grabbed the steering wheel while her legs were hanging outside the door. She pulled herself into the car as the man shifted the vehicle into drive and sped off with the door still open. He drove erratically and began hitting other vehicles. Each time the vehicle struck another car, the driver-side door would hit the victim's back. Although she was unable to remove the ignition key, she eventually managed to shift the gear into neutral. When the vehicle began to slow down, the man hit the brakes, pushed the victim aside, jumped out, and ran away. From start to finish, the carjacking incident lasted approximately two minutes.
The victim drove to a police station and provided Harrison Police Department Detective Joseph Sloan a description of the carjacker. She stated he was He also had "big eyes" and his skin was not "too dark, but he wasn't light skinned." She stated the man was wearing a red winter "skully" hat, gray hoodie, olive or brown vest, and faded blue jeans.
Detective Sloan collected video surveillance recordings from the area, including from a coffee shop and a convenience store. The video footage and screenshot stills were introduced as evidence at trial to show what the suspect was wearing.
On November 6, 2018, the victim went to the police station to view a photo array. Sergeant Charles Schimpf showed the victim six photographs. He handed the victim one photo at a time and instructed her to stack the photos on top of one another. Despite the instruction to view the photos sequentially, the victim started looking at the photos simultaneously, comparing one against the other.
The record indicates the victim at one point "really thought" the man who attempted to steal her car was an individual in a photograph that was not defendant. However, she ultimately selected defendant's photograph from the array.
The victim stated she was confident in her identification because she recognized the carjacker's eyes, explaining, She also recognized the man's mouth and nose. The victim stated she was eighty percent confident in her identification.
Defendant was arrested on November 27, 2018. Following the arrest, Detective Sloan took six photographs of defendant. In the arrest photos, defendant is wearing faded jeans, a black jacket, a grey hoodie, and a red skully cap.
In April 2019, while awaiting trial, defendant sent a letter addressed to the victim's home. The letter, as redacted for its use at trial, reads:
Defendant was initially charged by indictment with first-degree carjacking, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-2(a)(1). Following the letter incident, a superseding indictment added a charge of third-degree witness tampering, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a).
In June 2019, the trial court held a Wade 2 hearing to determine the admissibility of the eyewitness identification. On July 8, 2019, the trial court issued an oral ruling denying defendant's motion to suppress the victim's identification of defendant as the perpetrator.
In fall 2019, defendant was tried before a jury over the course of several days. The jury found defend...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hill
...awaiting trial has no First Amendment right to communicate directly with the victim of the alleged violent crime." 474 N.J.Super. 366, 370, 379 (App. Div. 2023). Court granted certification "limited to whether the witness tampering statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a), is unconstitutionally overbro......