State v. McClean
| Docket Number | A-0520-19 |
| Decision Date | 18 September 2023 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARLOS MCCLEAN, a/k/a CARLOS MCLEAN Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — 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.
Argued January 10, 2023
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Essex County, Indictment No. 16-03-0894.
Brian P. Keenan, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney Brian P. Keenan, of counsel and on the briefs).
Lucille M. Rosano, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Lucille M. Rosano, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Gilson, Rose and Gummer.
A jury convicted defendant Carlos McClean of felony murder, armed robbery, and weapons offenses for his part in the stranger-to-stranger, back-alley shooting death of Jonathan Matildes and armed robbery of Jaime Esteban during the pre-dawn hours of August 22, 2015, in Irvington. More particularly, defendant was convicted of four counts charged in an Essex County indictment: first-degree armed robbery of Esteban, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a)(1); second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1); second-degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)(1); and first-degree murder of Matildes during commission, or attempted commission, of a robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(3). The jury acquitted defendant of second-degree conspiracy to commit robbery, N.J.S.A 2C:5-2(a)(1); first-degree armed robbery of Matildes, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a)(1); and first-degree murder of Matildes, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of forty years, subject to the No Early Release Act, 2C:43-7.2, on the felony murder conviction.
During the multiple-day trial, the State presented the testimony of lay and expert witnesses and introduced into evidence surveillance video footage and defendant's recorded statements to police. The State contended that Matildes, Esteban, and another man identified only as "Geraldo" were standing in the alley behind the pizzeria where they had been working overnight, when a gray Honda Civic circled the area multiple times. Surveillance video footage captured the vehicle. Through their investigation, police identified the Honda, tracing it to defendant's girlfriend.
The car was occupied by defendant, Dorian Moody, and Ahmad Newsome.[1] Esteban testified that two men exited the car and said, "Don't move." Defendant pointed a gun "close to [Esteban's] heart." The men demanded money. Esteban had no money but offered his phone. Defendant swiped the phone away, shattering it. The other man beat Matildes, who was shot as he tried to run away. No property was taken from the victims. Esteban identified defendant as the shooter. However, the pizzeria owner, Octaviano Buenaventura, identified Moody as "the person who committed the homicide."
On September 3, 2015, defendant gave the first of two statements to Detectives Carlos Olmo and Tyrone Crawley, who were assigned to the homicide squad of the Essex County Prosecutor's Office. Accompanied by his mother - and Moody - defendant denied all involvement in the incident, initially claiming he was in Georgia at the time of the homicide. The following day, Esteban gave his statement to police inculpating defendant.
On September 11, 2015, defendant was arrested and charged with crimes relating to the homicide and robbery. Later the same day, he gave another statement to Olmo and Crawley. Defendant eventually acknowledged he, Moody, and Newsome drove around looking to "jump out and do a quick robbery." Defendant told police that after Moody stopped the car, Newsome exited and began "beating the guy up." Defendant also acknowledged he was carrying a .22 semi-automatic handgun, but claimed he did not fire it. Defendant stated Newsome shot Matildes with a revolver. Esteban offered his cell phone, but defendant "slapped it," claiming he did not want the phone or money. Defendant's trial testimony was largely consistent with his statement.
Prior to trial, defendant moved to suppress his September 11, 2015 statement, arguing police failed to honor his invocation of the right to counsel. During the N.J.R.E. 104(c) hearing, the State called Olmo and played defendant's videorecorded statement. Defendant did not testify or present any evidence on his behalf. Following the hearing, the court issued a written decision and a February 23, 2018 order, denying defendant's motion.
During jury deliberations, the trial court excused a juror after she asserted her mental health issues were aggravated by her interactions with the other deliberating jurors.[2] After questioning the juror, in the presence of the attorneys, the trial court replaced her with an alternate juror and denied defendant's motion for a mistrial.
On appeal, defendant raises the following points for our consideration:
Persuaded by the contentions raised in point I, we reverse and remand for a new trial excluding defendant's September 11, 2015 statement to police. In view of our disposition, we need not reach the contentions raised in the remaining points.
In his first point, defendant argues the motion court erroneously admitted his September 11, 2015 statement, contending: (1) the detectives failed to honor defendant's unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel; and (2) the detectives' continued dialogue after defendant requested counsel rendered his subsequent waiver involuntary. The State counters that the motion court correctly determined the detectives scrupulously honored defendant's invocation after clarifying his request for counsel and "[w]ithin one minute, defendant reinitiated the conversation about the crimes." Alternatively, the State argues "[a]ny error in the admission of defendant's statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based on the State's overwhelming proofs."
At issue is the following exchange, which ensued after the detectives Mirandized[3] defendant, advised of the charges filed against him, and explained that the investigation they had conducted after they first spoke with defendant led them to believe he had lied during his September 3, 2015 statement. We underscore those questions and answers that were emphasized by defendant in his merits brief:
To continue reading
Request your trial