State v. McNeil-Thomas, A-77 September Term 2017
| Decision Date | 18 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | 080758,A-77 September Term 2017 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rasul MCNEIL-THOMAS, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Frank J. Ducoat, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Frank J. Ducoat, of counsel and on the briefs).
James K. Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; James K. Smith, Jr., Hammonton, of counsel and on the briefs).
Adam D. Klein, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Adam D. Klein, of counsel and on the brief).
On a night in May 2011, an off-duty Newark police officer was shot and killed in a restaurant while waiting to purchase a slice of pizza for his dinner. Defendant Rasul McNeil-Thomas was convicted by a jury of shooting the officer, among other crimes. In this appeal, we consider the Appellate Division's reversal of defendant's convictions upon its findings that a brief segment of video surveillance played during summation was not admitted into evidence at trial and that, during summation, the prosecutor improperly linked defendant to one of the vehicles shown in the video segment.
First, we disagree that the video was not admitted into evidence. We defer to the trial judge's determination that the disputed footage was played for the jury during the State's case-in-chief. And although defense counsel preserved an objection to the admission of extraneous surveillance footage, a careful review of the trial transcript shows that defense counsel consented to the admission of the surveillance footage depicting the moments surrounding the shooting, including the video segment at issue. We therefore find the court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to play the video segment during his closing remarks.
Next, we consider whether it was proper for the prosecutor to invite the jury to infer that the video segment showed defendant in one of the vehicles, following his stepfather in another, driving by the restaurant shortly before the shooting. We conclude that the prosecutor's comments were reasonable and fair inferences supported by the evidence presented at trial.
We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division, reinstate defendant's convictions, and remand for consideration of defendant's sentencing arguments.
The trial transcript reveals that on a night in May 2011, William Johnson, an off-duty Newark police officer, waited for a slice of pizza at the Texas Fried Chicken and Pizza Restaurant, known as the "chicken shack." The restaurant was located at the intersection of Lyons Avenue and Clinton Place in Newark. As Officer Johnson waited at the restaurant along with several others -- including a five-month-old baby -- a silver Chevrolet Malibu slowly passed the chicken shack, as captured by the restaurant's exterior surveillance camera.
The video showed a distinct muzzle flash emanating from the front passenger window of the car as several rounds were fired into the restaurant. One of those bullets struck Officer Johnson in the chest, killing him. Three other patrons were wounded
. The silver Malibu sped off, turning left on Lyons Avenue.
Surveillance video obtained from the nearby Bobby's Restaurant showed the silver Malibu turn off of Lyons Avenue, headed in the direction of where it was later found abandoned -- four blocks from the scene of the shooting and around the corner from defendant's residence. Among other items of evidential value, police recovered five spent shell casings from inside the silver Malibu and three shell casings from outside the restaurant. Ballistics analysis later established that the same nine-millimeter handgun fired three of the five shell casings found inside the car and the three shell casings recovered from outside of the restaurant.
Surveillance video obtained from St. Peter's Park, located between where the Malibu was abandoned and defendant's residence, showed two black males wearing hoodies walking through the park toward defendant's residence immediately after the shooting. A K-9 unit later tracked a scent from the driver's seat of the Malibu through the park and directly past the front of defendant's house before losing the scent near his home.
Witnesses also linked defendant to the Malibu, which had been carjacked from the driveway of a home located on Clinton Place, only a block-and-a-half away from the restaurant.
First, the carjacking victim described how she was sitting in the front passenger seat of her boyfriend's idling silver Malibu when a man who was wearing "some type of sweater or something" ordered her out of the car by tapping his gun on the driver's side window. As she exited the car, she saw a second man standing about a foot-and-a-half away from her wearing a hoodie; she could see the outline of a gun in his hoodie. By the time she reached the steps of her boyfriend's home, she heard the car speeding out of the driveway. Seconds later, she heard the sound of gunshots coming from the chicken shack down the block. She was shown a photo array about seven hours after the incident but was unable to make an identification. Later that afternoon, police showed her the same photo lineup, and the carjacking victim identified defendant as the man wearing a hoodie.
Two witnesses who were at the murder scene also identified defendant. The first witness, who was standing directly outside of the chicken shack as the shots were fired from the Malibu, identified defendant as one of the shooters from a photo array about three months after the murder. At trial, she explained to the jury that initially she did not want to get involved with the investigation because she was too scared to come forward. It was also revealed on direct examination that she used one "deck"1 of heroin at noon on the day of the murder, but she testified that she was not under the influence at the time of the shooting, more than nine hours later.
The second witness, who knew defendant and his family, was standing in the front doorway of the restaurant and facing the street as the Malibu approached. She told investigators in a videotaped statement just hours after the incident that she "locked eyes" with one of the shooters, whom she identified as defendant. She also identified defendant through a photo array later that same night. At trial, however, the witness recanted while on the stand. A Gross 2 hearing was held, during which the State called the two investigators who conducted the videotaped interview of the witness on the night of the murder. The court found that the witness "told the truth at the time" she provided her videotaped statement, which was then admitted into evidence and played for the jury.
Investigating officers learned that, about an hour before the shooting, a street brawl took place in front of defendant's home between defendant and his family and a group of young women, including three later seen in the restaurant at the time of the shooting. According to the State, defendant's motive for the shooting was retribution for that earlier assault against defendant and his family.
Defendant's neighbor, who called 9-1-1 to report the street brawl, told police she saw defendant and his stepfather leave defendant's home together in a blue pickup truck shortly after the fight was over. According to the neighbor, she then saw both men return home, but defendant was in a black sedan -- which she described as "like" a Cadillac CTS -- with three other individuals, while the stepfather returned alone in the blue pickup truck. The neighbor also stated that, after a brief discussion outside of defendant's residence, defendant and one of the others got back into the black sedan and drove off, following the stepfather in the blue pickup truck. As part of their investigation, the police obtained a search warrant and seized, processed, and photographed a blue 1993 Ford pickup truck belonging to defendant's stepfather, with custom chrome fender flares and a damaged rear bumper.
Significantly, the police also discovered that surveillance video from the scene had captured a pickup truck pass the restaurant shortly before the shooting, followed by a black sedan. Investigators developed the theory that defendant and his stepfather had driven by the chicken shack in search of the young women from the brawl and that, finding them there, defendant carjacked the Malibu and returned to shoot them.
Defendant was arrested the day after the shooting for carjacking the silver Malibu. He was later indicted for the murder of Officer Johnson, several attempted murders and aggravated assaults of other individuals, the carjacking, and other related conspiracy and weapons offenses.
A month-long trial followed, during which evidence offered by the State included the video surveillance footage from the restaurant's security cameras and digital stills created from the video footage, video surveillance footage from two nearby establishments, the testimony of defendant's neighbor who called 9-1-1, and the photos of the blue pickup truck processed by police.
Defendant's neighbor confirmed during her testimony that the pickup truck depicted in the police photos was the same truck she saw leaving defendant's home followed by the black sedan shortly before the shooting. On cross-examination, defense counsel vigorously challenged the neighbor's recollection of the vehicular traffic in front of her home that evening. Specifically, he questioned her extensively on the order in which the pickup truck and the sedan left the home, as well as her ability to recall who was in the black sedan.
The State also offered into evidence defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Watson
...... of a bank and from the imposition of an extended term of imprisonment as a persistent offender. He contends that ...On January 14, 2017, Christian Gambarrotti was working as a teller at a bank in ...In September 2018, approximately a year-and-a-half after the North ... See State v. McNeil-Thomas , 238 N.J. 256, 275, 209 A.3d 845 (2019) (" ......
-
State v. Clark
...Williams, 244 N.J. at 607, 243 A.3d 647 (second alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. McNeil-Thomas, 238 N.J. 256, 275, 209 A.3d 845 (2019) ). If defense counsel fails to object contemporaneously to the prosecutor's comments, "the reviewing court may infer that......
-
State v. Williams
...in law enforcement and at the same time help assure that the accused is treated fairly and that justice is done." State v. McNeil-Thomas, 238 N.J. 256, 274, 209 A.3d 845 (2019) (quoting State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 323-24, 524 A.2d 188 (1987) ). Having said that, the fundamental obligati......
-
State v. Garajau
...remarks stray over the line of permissible commentary," reversal of a conviction is not automatically required. State v. McNeil-Thomas, 238 N.J. 256, 275 (2019). Rather, "the severity of the misconduct and its prejudicial effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial" is weighed, and a co......