State v. Macchia

• Decision Date: 04 October 2021
• Docket Number: A-5473-17
• Parties: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEPH S. MACCHIA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEPH S. MACCHIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-5473-17

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

October 4, 2021

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued November 16, 2020

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Union County, Indictment No. 16-12-0814.

John Vincent Saykanic argued the cause for appellant.

Michele C. Buckley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor attorney; Michele C. Buckley, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Currier, Gooden Brown and DeAlmeida.

OPINION

GOODEN BROWN, J.A.D.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree reckless manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1), and sentenced to a six-year term of imprisonment, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The charge stemmed from the fatal shooting of Michael Gaffney outside a bar. Defendant then an off-duty police officer, and the victim engaged in fist fights during the night, which ended when defendant fired his service weapon, hitting the victim three times. At trial, the State presented a surveillance video of the encounter as well as the accounts of multiple eyewitnesses. Defendant claimed he shot the victim in self-defense because the victim was reaching for defendant's gun.

On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT'S ADMITTEDLY ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION AS TO WHAT THE JURY WAS REQUIRED TO FIND IN ORDER TO DISALLOW SELF-DEFENSE (THE COURT'S INCORRECTLY REQUIRING THAT DEFENDANT "DID NOT PROVOKE THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE PURPOSE TO KILL" AS OPPOSED TO THE CORRECT "DID NOT PROVOKE THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST HIMSELF IN THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE PURPOSE TO KILL") DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V, VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 9).

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS INSTRUCTION BY NOT SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTING THE JURY THAT IT NEEDED TO UNANIMOUSLY AGREE ON THE FACTORS DISPROVED BY THE STATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (IN SPITE OF THE DEFENSE REQUEST AND OBVIOUS JURY CONFUSION), AND FAILED TO PROVIDE THE JURY WITH A SPECIAL INTERROGATORY REGARDING THE THEORY FORMING THE BASIS FOR ITS CONVICTION RESULTING IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PATCHWORK/FRAGMENTED OR LESS THAN UNANIMOUS VERDICT (U.S. CONST. [AMENDS.] V, VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 9); AND R[ULE] 1:8-9.

POINT III

THE ERRONEOUS JURY INSTRUCTION AS TO THE TIMING WITH REGARDS TO THE DUTY TO RETREAT "AFTER THE SECOND ALTERCATION" WHEN, IN REALITY, IT WAS AT THE MOMENT OF THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V, VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 9).

POINT IV

THE TRIAL COURT DENIED DEFENDANT OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION TO FULLY CROSS-EXAMINE A KEY STATE'S WITNESS[] (U.S. CONST. AMEND. VI; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 10).

POINT V

THE IMPROPER STATE'S CLOSING STATEMENT (INCLUDING AN IMPROPERLY UTILIZED POWER POINT PRESENTATION MIS[S]TATING THE LAW AS TO DUTY TO RETREAT) DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND STATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARAS. 1, 10).

POINT VI

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING MANY HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF GAFFNEY THROUGH THE TRIAL TESTIMONY OF ROBERT LIMA AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSIONS UNDER [N.J.R.E.] 803(C)(3) AND UNDER [N.J.R.E.] 803(C)(2); THE GAFFNEY/LIMA STATEMENTS SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN RULED INADMISSIBLE UNDER [N.J.R.E.] 403; DEFENDANT'S CONFRONTATION AND DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V, VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PARA. 10).

POINT VII

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR (R. 2:10-2) IN FAILING TO ADDRESS TO THE JURY (EITHER WITH A LIMITING INSTRUCTION DURING THE TESTIMONY OF LIMA OR DURING FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS) THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF THE "PRESENT SENSE/STATE-OF-MIND" HEARSAY EVIDENCE (NOT RAISED BELOW).

POINT VIII

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL AS THE STATE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT'S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT; THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IS CONTRARY TO THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND [THE] NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION (1947) ART. I, PARAS. 1, 10.

POINT IX

THE NUMEROUS LEGAL ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE COURT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL; (U.S. CONST. AMENDS. VI AND XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947) ART. I, PAR. 10) (NOT RAISED BELOW).

POINT X

AS THE SENTENCING JUDGE FOUND THAT THE MITIGATING FACTORS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED THE ONE AGGRAVATING FACTOR, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO A SENTENCE ONE DEGREE LOWER PURSUANT TO [N.J.S.A.] 2C:44-1[(F)](2) AND SENTENCED TO THE MINIMUM TERM PERMISSIBLE.

We have considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles. We reject each of the points raised and affirm.

I.

Following the adjudication of various pre-trial motions, an eleven-day jury trial was conducted on various dates in May and June 2018, during which the State produced seventeen witnesses. In addition to the medical examiner and various law enforcement witnesses, the bar owner, the bartender, and seven bar patrons testified for the State, including defendant's wife. Defendant testified on his own behalf. He did not present any additional witnesses. We glean these facts from the trial record.

Defendant was an eleven-year veteran police officer with the Newark Police Department. Upon completion of his shift on May 12, 2016, defendant returned to his home, changed into his civilian clothes, and secured his service weapon on his waist in an off-duty holster, covering it with "an oversized tee shirt." Thereafter, defendant and his wife, Katherine Macchia, went to Paddy's Place, a bar located in Union to celebrate Katherine's newly discovered pregnancy.^[1] They arrived at about 11:00 p.m., socialized and listened to music. Several of the patrons, including defendant and his wife, were regular customers who knew each other. Over the course of about two hours, defendant consumed "[six] Miller Lite beers and [two] shots . . . of Jack Daniels" while his wife drank "[s]eltzer water."

Michael Gaffney, with whom defendant was acquainted, arrived at Paddy's Place around 10:30 p.m. to meet his friend, Robert Lima, to discuss a potential construction job. Gaffney and Lima both worked in the construction industry and had known each other for about twenty years. Lima arrived at the bar between 10:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. and consumed "[a]bout two [drinks]." Shortly after 1:00 a.m. the following morning, Lima was in the process of leaving when "he saw Gaffney had a cigarette in his mouth." While outside, Lima and Gaffney playfully jostled each other over the cigarette Gaffney was smoking, prompting Gaffney to "joking[ly]" hit Lima's shoulder. According to Gregory Netschert, another bar patron and friend of Gaffney and Lima, Gaffney was known among his friends for "play fight[ing]" and had "punched [Netschert] in the chest" as he was leaving the bar.

Around that time, defendant was also outside smoking a cigarette. When defendant saw Gaffney hit Lima, he asked Gaffney if he "liked to throw hands" and Gaffney responded "sometimes." Gaffney and defendant then began "slap boxing" with each other, which Lima described as "the two . . . squar[ing] with each other and hit[ting] each other" without "try[ing] to be malicious." By all accounts, Gaffney was significantly taller and heavier than defendant.^[2] At one point, Gaffney hit defendant and defendant "went down." Gaffney then tackled defendant, and the two wrestled on the ground. Lima tried unsuccessfully to separate them. At some point, defendant grabbed Gaffney by the shirt and pulled the shirt off of him. By that time, other patrons, and the bartender, Nicolette Bedlivy, had exited the bar and tried to convince defendant and Gaffney to stop fighting. Eventually, they were separated, and Gaffney walked back inside the bar while defendant remained outside with his wife, who was pleading with him to leave. However, defendant was visibly agitated. One bar patron, Anthony DiMondi, approached defendant and tried to get him to calm down, telling him he didn't "want to ruin [his] career." Defendant did not respond.

Meanwhile, Gaffney was inside the bar with his friend and former Paddy's Place bartender, Catherine Vinsko. Vinsko told Gaffney to stop fighting because defendant would "sue him if he kept it up." Gaffney finally agreed and walked back to the front door. Standing in the doorway, Gaffney said to defendant: "Bro, it's over." "I don't want to fight." "Just let's end it." Witnesses testified that at that juncture, Gaffney and defendant "shook hands" and "chest bumped" each other to signify a reconciliation. Gaffney then walked back inside the bar. On the other hand, defendant stayed outside, saying he was "not done." Although his wife tried to get him to leave, defendant refused. Instead, defendant stood by the doorway of the bar, looking and pointing at Gaffney "to entice him to come back out." In response, Gaffney yelled "stop eyeballing me."

Eventually Gaffney came to the door, and he and defendant began to fight again. Defendant fell to the ground, and Gaffney got on top of him, punching him repeatedly. Realizing the fight was not going to stop, Lima went over to Gaffney and grabbed him. Vinsko also tried to grab Gaffney. As they pulled him off of de...