State of New Jersey v. Ryan J. Rinker, 141 A.3d 412

Background

Defendant Ryan J. Rinker was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun and third-degree theft; sentenced under the Graves Act; this opinion reverses and remands for a new trial.
State theory: defendant stole his father's Colt .38 Detective Special and sold it to co-defendant Edwards; defendant made recorded admissions from a treatment facility and identified Edwards; text records and phone records were introduced.
The gun itself was never recovered; State introduced cellphone records and a witness who saw Edwards with a gun previously.
The State sought to admit defendant's father’s prior testimony (given at Edwards’s earlier trial) under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing) after the father did not appear at defendant’s trial.
At a Rule 104 hearing the trial judge credited police testimony suggesting defendant or his associates discouraged witnesses and found circumstantial evidence that defendant indirectly procured his father’s unavailability; the court admitted the father’s prior testimony into evidence.
The Appellate Division held the State failed to prove by a preponderance each predicate of N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9), particularly the required intent to procure the witness’s unavailability, and that admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Rinker's Argument	Held
Admissibility under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing) of the father’s prior testimony	The State argued it showed defendant engaged in wrongdoing that intended to and did procure the father’s unavailability (circumstantial evidence and police efforts)	Admission improper: State failed to prove by preponderance that defendant’s wrongful conduct intended to or actually procured father's absence; Confrontation violation	Reversed: State did not meet its burden on the Rule’s three predicates, notably intent to procure unavailability; testimony was inadmissible hearsay
Confrontation Clause	Admission under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing cures any confrontation problem if the Rule’s predicates are proved	Admission violated Sixth Amendment because State failed to show intent to make witness unavailable	Held admission violated confrontation principles because State failed to prove requisite intent; therefore error required reversal unless harmless
Harmless-error analysis	Any error was harmless because admissions, texts, and other records independently established guilt	Admission was central — father’s testimony (his son stole the gun) likely contributed to jury verdict; not harmless	Held error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reasonable possibility testimony contributed to conviction; reversal required
Sufficiency of non-hearsay evidence (alternative State argument)	The State contended confessions, texts, and records corroborated guilt and satisfied elements	Rinker argued insufficient corroboration and inability to prove the specific gun/handgun element without father's testimony	Held non-hearsay evidence would have supported conviction, but given the constitutional error and contribution analysis, reversal and retrial required; not entitled to acquittal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Byrd, 198 N.J. 319 (N.J. 2009) (adopted forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception and set procedural requirements for admitting such evidence)
State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311 (N.J. 2011) (addressed post hoc/admissibility issues and emphasized need for Rule 104 findings)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause framework for testimonial hearsay)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (holding intent to make witness unavailable is required to extinguish confrontation right)
State v. Pillar, 359 N.J. Super. 249 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003) (discussed harmless-error contribution analysis to determine whether error affected the jury’s actual verdict)
State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553 (N.J. 2004) (corroboration required for relying on confessions; standard for sufficiency challenges)