State v. I.G.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court
• Writing for the Court: OSTRER, J.A.D. (retired and temporarily assigned on recall)
• Docket Number: MER-25-1708
• Decision Date: 18 March 2026
• Citation: State v. I.G., MER-25-1708 (N.J. Super. Mar 18, 2026)
• Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff, v. I.G., Defendant.

1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff, v. I.G., Defendant.

No. MER-25-1708

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer

March 18, 2026

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMITTEE ON OPINIONS LAW DIVISION, CRIMINAL PART

INDICTMENT 25-09-902-I

LAURA KOTARBA, ESQ., assistant prosecutor (Office of the Mercer County Prosecutor), attorney for State of New Jersey.

MICHAEL DONAHER, ESQ., assistant deputy public defender (Office of the Public Defender), attorney for I.G..

OSTRER, J.A.D. (retired and temporarily assigned on recall)

The State moves to introduce as "fresh complaint" evidence then-ten-year-old S.W.'s ("Sohail")^[1] report that his mother's boyfriend defendant I.G., sexually assaulted him.

The court denies the motion. Sohail's June 3, 2025, complaint to his mother and grandmother was far from fresh. The complaint followed the alleged assault by roughly five years. Defendant had not lived in the same household as Sohail for roughly four years. The State has not plausibly explained the child's delay. Nor has the State established that the child made the statement voluntarily and spontaneously, even under the relaxed requirements applied to children. Finally admitting his complaint made so long after the alleged assault would not achieve the purpose of the fresh complaint doctrine.

I.

Fresh complaint evidence is admissible under a common law exception to the hearsay rule. See State v. R.K., 220 N.J 444, 455 (2015) (stating that the fresh complaint doctrine "allows the admission of evidence of a victim's complaint of sexual abuse, otherwise inadmissible as hearsay"). As the proponent of such evidence, the State bears the burden to show that it meets the exception's requisites. See State v. Buda, 195 N.J. 278, 312 (2008) (Albin, J., dissenting) (stating "[t]he burden of persuasion rests with the proponent of hearsay evidence to show that it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule"). The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. See State v. Stubbs, 433 N.J.Super. 273, 286 (App. Div. 2013) (applying adoptive admission hearsay exception); State v. James, 346 N.J.Super. 441, 457 (App. Div. 2002) (applying co-conspirator hearsay exception).

The court heard testimony on January 27, 2026, from Sohail's mother, D.W. ("Denise"), and his grandmother, J.W. ("Jennifer").^[2] The court also admitted into evidence their prior statements to detectives. See Exh. D-1 Evid. (Interview of Jennifer W., Dec. 12, 2025); Exh. D-2 Evid. (Interview of Denise W., June 6, 2025).^[3]

The witnesses did not intend to deceive, but their recollections differed. Their testimony also conflicted with their prior statements. Generally, the court places great weight on Denise's prior statement. She gave it just three days after the events in question. The court concludes that her recollections then were likely clearer than when she testified. Jennifer gave her statement six months after Sohail's report and testified two months after that. Also, Jennifer appeared emotionally upset during her testimony because of a recent death in her family.

The court is also mindful of Chief Justice Vanderbilt's observation long ago: "Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself." In re Estate of Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950). The court may reject testimony that "contains inherent improbabilities or contradictions which alone or in connection with other circumstances in evidence excite suspicion." Ibid. The court does so here and makes the following findings.

Defendant and Denise lived together "on and off" on C. Avenue^[4] in Trenton between 2018 and 2020. Exh. D-2 at 4. Their household included Sohail and three children the couple had during that time. Ibid. Sohail was born February 21, 2015. Id. at 2. His father is incarcerated. Id. at 4. Defendant and Denise had a daughter on July 24, 2019, and twins on July 28, 2020.

In 2021, Denise separated from defendant and moved to a different residence on N. Avenue with the children. Id. at 8. By that time, she "completely left him alone," as defendant had a child with another woman. Id. at 9. She would take their daughter and twins to him if they wanted to see their father. Ibid. "He was never coming around." Ibid.

After the move, Denise noticed that Sohail was not properly wiping himself after toileting. He was "afraid to wipe his butt." Id. at 7. He also was urinating in bed. Id. at 8. His poor hygiene meant he often smelled bad. Ibid. Denise had to monitor his showers, to make sure he washed around his anus and buttocks. Exh. D-2 at 8.

Jennifer confirmed that Sohail's problematic hygiene had persisted for years. Exh. D-1 at 3. He did not wipe himself and soiled his clothes. Id. at 6. He was bullied at school and wrote notes about suicide. Id. at 8.

Sohail's persistently poor hygiene led to his disclosure on June 3, 2025. Denise noticed that Sohail smelled of feces when she picked him up from school. "So, I'm like Sohail why you stink, you gotta get in the shower." Exh. D-2 at 10. Sohail denied that he smelled bad. Ibid. Jennifer then arrived at the home and pressed Sohail to explain why he did not wipe properly and walked around smelling badly. Id. at 11.

Denise and Jennifer both recalled that Sohail explained he did not wipe himself so he would not have to worry about someone touching him. Exh. D-1 at 4; Exh. D-2 at 12. And he alleged that defendant had touched him. Exh. D-1 at 5; Exh. D-2 at 12. But the two women differed about what prompted Sohail's explanation and his accusation.

Denise recalled that her mother was "pressuring" Sohail, id. at 10, and got "mad" and asked Sohail if he had been touched. Exh. D-2 at 11.

So, she like, Sohail, have you been touched? So, he like no. So she like you do you like walking around, smelling like shit, you know. Now she mad. Because he just keeps saying, I don't know, I don't know. So, she like, um, have you been touched? So, she like no, he like no.

[Ibid.].

Jennifer then got Denise's brother, F.H. ("Faisal") to join the conversation. Ibid. He asked Sohail what was wrong, and Sohail said nothing. After Jennifer asked Sohail, "do you like smelling like that," he disclosed "[Y]eah, I'd rather smell, like, like, somebody won't touch me." Id. at 12.

Denise recalled that Jennifer asked Sohail if defendant touched him, referring to defendant by his street name. Exh. D-2 at 12 ("first my mom said, did [street name] touch you?"). At first, Sohail denied that defendant had, although, according to Denise, he paused and seemed scared at the mention of defendant's name. Id. at 12. Upon further questioning, Sohail claimed defendant had touched him. Id. ("And he said, yes, he touched me. Now he's crying.").

At the hearing, Denise said her mother was listing names of possible perpetrators - persons older than Sohail with whom he had contact - and when she got to defendant's name, Sohail froze.. When asked to describe Jennifer's demeanor while speaking to Sohail, Denise replied, "I wanna say angry."

However, at the hearing, Jennifer denied that she pressured Sohail. She recalled that Sohail volunteered his explanation for not wiping before any mention of inappropriate touching. Exh. D-1 at 4. Jennifer also said she asked him who touched him. She denied suggesting defendant. "I never said no name." Id. at 5. She repeated that denial at the hearing. She also denied being angry, and instead explained her reaction as concern for her young grandson. She said Sohail got very upset and said defendant had touched him. Exh. D-1 at 5.

The court finds Denise's version more likely true than Jennifer's. In addition to the reasons already stated, two other factors favor the conclusion that Jennifer was "mad" or "angry," and suggestively asked Sohail if someone had touched him and then, once he agreed, asked him if defendant committed the assault. First, Jennifer may have understood that Sohail's credibility might be undermined if his allegations were elicited by suggestive or pressured questioning.

Second, Jennifer had previously suspected that someone had inappropriately touched Sohail. See Id. at 4 ("I knew something happened to him my grandson, but I didn't know what. I didn't know if he was going gay . . . or the next thing it can be is did somebody touch him."). Denise testified that Jennifer and she asked Sohail multiple times in the past why he was not wiping and if anyone had touched him. She testified that he used to say "no," or "I don't know." It would be understandable if Jennifer disclosed her long-held suspicions in questioning her grandson, prompting his disclosure. And it would be understandable if her frustration and concern reflected an attitude that Denise described as "mad" and "angry."

Sohail alleged that defendant had inserted his fingers into Sohail's anus when they were both lying on the living room couch in the C. Avenue home. Exh. D-1 at 6-7, 15-17.^[5] His mother was asleep in another room. Id. at 15. The only other person in the house was his little sister. The twins were not born yet. Id. at 17. Sohail said he was assaulted only once. Id. at 14. According to Jennifer, Sohail delayed reporting for five years. Exh. D-1 at 7 ("He held it for five years.") According to Denise, Sohail said he was about five or six years old when defendant assaulted him. Exh. D-2 at 12.

Denise said that Sohail previously considered defendant a father figure. Id. at 6. She testified that they were once close; defendant bought Sohail clothes, took him to and from school, and cut his hair. Sohail used to call him "Pop." But, from 2021 on, his attitude changed. In her statement to detectives, she said that for "a couple years" Sohail had "hate[d] him to the core." Id. at 6...