State v. Zapata

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Citation297 N.J.Super. 160,687 A.2d 1025
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Uriel ZAPATA, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision Date04 February 1997

Page 160

297 N.J.Super. 160
687 A.2d 1025
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
Uriel ZAPATA, Defendant-Appellant.
Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.
Submitted Nov. 26, 1996.
Decided Feb. 4, 1997.

[687 A.2d 1027]

Page 164

Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, for defendant-appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Charles R. Buckley, Deputy Attorney General-In Charge, Acting Bergen County Prosecutor, for plaintiff-respondent (John J. Scaliti, Special Deputy Attorney General-Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the letter brief).

Before Judges MICHELS, MUIR, JR. and KLEINER.

The opinion of the court was delivered by


Following a joint jury trial with co-defendants Fernando Hernandez (Hernandez) and Germon O. Rodriguez (Rodriguez), defendant Uriel Zapata was found guilty of possession of cocaine in a quantity of one-half ounce or more but less than five ounces with intent to distribute, a crime of the second degree, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(2) (First Count), possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of school property, a crime of the third degree, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (Second Count), and possession of cocaine, a crime of the third degree, in violation of

Page 165

N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (Third Count). 1 Defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied. The trial court merged defendant's convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of school property under the Second Count and possession of cocaine under the Third Count into his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute under the First Count and committed defendant to the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections for five years, with a three-year period of parole ineligibility. In addition, the trial court imposed a $2,000 Drug Enforcement and Demand Reduction Penalty, a $50 laboratory fee, and a $30 Violent Crimes Compensation Board penalty and suspended defendant's driver's license in New Jersey for two years. Defendant appeals.


Following defendant's indictment, he and co-defendants Hernandez and Rodriguez moved to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless search of the motor vehicle in which defendant was a passenger. According to the proofs at the suppression hearing, on April 16, 1991, at approximately 7:15 p.m., Detective Joseph M. Martin of the Englewood Police Department received a dispatch regarding an anonymous call taken by an Englewood Police Dispatcher. Detective [687 A.2d 1028] Martin was assigned to the Neighborhood Stabilization Squad, which dealt primarily with narcotic enforcement. The dispatch informed Detective Martin that a few male Hispanics in a tan Chevy were distributing cocaine in a parking lot at Vinnie's Tavern in Englewood. Detective Martin was also given the number of the New York license plate. Upon receiving the dispatch, Detective Martin responded to the area of Vinnie's Tavern.

Page 166

While Detective Martin was en route, Detective Edward Murray radioed that he had left Vinnie's Tavern's parking lot and was traveling on the street on which the tavern was located. Detective Murray radioed that he was behind a tan Chevy with New York license plates, which matched the description received from the dispatcher. Detective Martin soon observed the vehicle. He cut his vehicle in front of the suspect vehicle and ordered the driver to pull into a parking space along the street. Detective Murray's vehicle blocked the rear of the suspect vehicle.

Detectives Murray and Martin ordered the three passengers to exit the vehicle and directed them to place their hands on the hood of the vehicle. Hernandez was the driver, defendant was the front seat passenger, and Rodriguez was the rear seat passenger. As Rodriguez exited the vehicle, Detective Martin saw a small, plastic, glassine-type of envelope with a red stripe on it, which appeared to contain cocaine. The envelope was protruding from the crease of the rear seat near where Rodriguez had just been sitting. Based on his experience and training and the information provided by the police dispatcher, Detective Martin suspected that the envelope contained cocaine. He immediately seized the envelope as evidence.

Detective Martin then arrested defendant and the two co-defendants. Detective Martin did not find any other evidence of weapons or narcotic paraphernalia. However, he found $1,013.30 in cash on Hernandez, $24.15 in cash on Rodriguez and $136.46 in cash on defendant. He proceeded to attempt to advise the defendants of their rights verbally, but they claimed that they did not understand English. Defendant, Hernandez, and Rodriguez were then transported to Police Headquarters.

Detective Martin further testified that at the time defendant and the two co-defendants were ordered out of the vehicle, they could not have driven away and they were not free to leave. Detective Martin also testified that seven-eighths of the envelope was visible on the seat, but one-eighth was hidden in the back seat crease. Detective Martin impounded the vehicle and notified the

Page 167

Bergen County Police K-9 Unit because he felt that, based on the anonymous call, the evidence found, and his experience, more narcotics were in the vehicle. A police dog indicated that drugs were located in the left vent of the air-conditioning unit. When the unit was removed, Detective Martin found a brown paper bag containing a total of thirty-seven plastic bags of suspected cocaine. Detective Martin testified that he did not see the brown bag in the air-conditioning unit at the scene and that he did not find any other evidence when he conducted a search at the scene.

At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, Judge Minuskin in the Law Division found that Detectives Martin and Murray, based upon the anonymous call and the corroborated observation of the suspect vehicle,

had reasonable and probable cause to stop the vehicle as authority to be able to investigate and to determine whether or not a crime was being committed, and upon observing in connection therewith based upon that which was said to them the Court believes that they had the right to order the occupants to exit suspecting that this vehicle based on an anonymous tip contained contraband.

The trial court also upheld the seizure of the plastic glassine envelope, the arrest of defendant and his co-defendants, and the seizure of the brown bag containing thirty-seven plastic bags of suspected cocaine hidden in the air-conditioning unit and denied the motion to suppress.


The facts adduced at the suppression hearing were corroborated at trial. Detective Murray testified that after receiving the dispatch[687 A.2d 1029] message he observed a Brown Chevy Celebrity with New York plates and three passengers leaving the parking lot of Vinnie's Tavern. The vehicle was registered to Elid Montola of New York City. Efforts to locate Elid Montola were unsuccessful. Defendant was determined to be a resident of New York City, Hernandez, a resident of Palisades Park, and Rodriguez, a resident of Englewood.

The substance recovered from the vehicle was determined to be cocaine, totaling 0.75 ounces (approx. 21 grams) and worth up to

Page 168

$1,800. Robert Dodd (Dodd), an Investigator with the Bergen County Narcotic Task Force, testified that the cocaine recovered was possessed with an intent to distribute. Dodd's opinion was based on the amount of cocaine found, the way it was packaged, the New York City registered vehicle, the number of people in the vehicle and their origins, the lack of drug paraphernalia, and the amount of money and its denominations.

Detective Murray testified on recross-examination that he had arrested one of the defendants subsequent to the April 16, 1991 incident. Defense counsel immediately moved for a mistrial. Having determined that Detective Murray was referring to Hernandez, the trial court granted the motion as to Hernandez, but denied the motion as to defendant and Rodriguez. The trial court instructed the jury that Detective Murray had not arrested either of the other defendants before or after April 16, 1991. He further instructed the jury that Hernandez's trial had been severed from the present trial and that Detective Murray's response should in no way prejudice the two remaining defendants.

Defendant testified that he had attempted to go to the Columbia Restaurant, in Englewood, but he took the wrong bus from New York. He was let off in an unfamiliar place and could not locate the restaurant. According to defendant, he saw Hernandez drive by and recognized him because he had seen him in New York a few times. However, defendant had never met nor had he ever spoken to Hernandez before the day of the arrest. Defendant did not recognize the vehicle and did not know who owned it. He asked Hernandez for directions, but instead Hernandez offered to drive him to the Columbia Restaurant. They drove to the restaurant stopping only at a laundromat where Hernandez dropped off some clothing. Defendant was about to exit the vehicle when Rodriguez approached Hernandez and asked him for a ride home. Defendant had never seen Rodriguez before. Hernandez acquiesced and asked defendant to ride along, after which they would return to the Columbia Restaurant to eat together. Shortly

Page 169

after the three had begun to drive Rodriguez home they were stopped by Detectives Martin and Murray.

Defendant also testified that he did not see any drugs in the vehicle, that he did not use any drugs while in the vehicle, and that he did not sell any drugs while in the vehicle. Defendant had seen Hernandez a few times in front of defendant's place of work, a mechanic's shop near Broadway. Defendant testified that he did not know the name of the shop because he was paid in cash. He also could not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Branch
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • June 4, 1997
    ...predicate necessary to justify an investigatory stop when there is corroboration of the information furnished." State v. Zapata, 297 N.J.Super. 160, 173, 687 A.2d 1025 (App.Div.1997); see also State v. Thomas, 110 N.J. 673, 683, 542 A.2d 912 (1988); State In Re H.B., 75 N.J. 243, 249, 381 A......
  • State v. Crumb
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • December 24, 1997
    ...reasonableness." Ibid. "Fourth Amendment issues are complex and are 'peculiarly dependent upon the facts involved.' " State v. Zapata, 297 N.J.Super. 160, 171, 687 A.2d 1025 (App.Div.1997) (quoting State v. Anderson, 198 N.J.Super. 340, 348, 486 A.2d 1311 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 101 N.J......
  • State v. Boetti
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • August 14, 1997
    ...and its ruling will only be reversed if the content of the instruction evidences an abuse of discretion. See State v. Zapata, 297 N.J.Super. 160, 687 A.2d 1025, 1033 (App.Div.1997) ; cf. State v. Macrae, 141 N.H. 106, 114, 677 A.2d 698, 704 (1996). The adequacy of a particular jury instruct......
  • State v. Boetti
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • August 14, 1997
    ...and its ruling will only be reversed if the content of the instruction evidences an abuse of discretion. See State v. Zapata, 297 N.J.Super. 160, 687 A.2d 1025, 1033 (App.Div.1997); cf. State v. Macrae, 141 N.H. 106, 114, 677 A.2d 698, 704 (1996). The adequacy of a particular jury instructi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT