State of New Jersey v. Amie Marroccelli, 153 A.3d 302

Background

On Oct. 10, 2010 a BMW registered to Amie Marroccelli struck another vehicle on I‑78; the other driver later died. Marroccelli was indicted for second‑degree vehicular homicide.
At the scene and in multiple subsequent statements Marroccelli told others she was driving; police arrested her after field sobriety tests and a post‑arrest BAC of .087% (State expert extrapolated to .14% at time of crash).
Marroccelli later testified that her husband, Jason Bradbury, had actually been driving and that they concocted a false story at the scene to protect him; she said Bradbury wrote a handwritten note confessing he was the driver.
At a Rule 104 hearing the trial judge excluded the handwritten note as insufficiently authenticated and thus inadmissible, and precluded certain habit evidence (left‑lane/speeding habits) while allowing habit evidence about not driving after drinking.
Jury convicted Marroccelli of second‑degree vehicular homicide; she was sentenced to 7 years with 85% parole ineligibility. On appeal the Appellate Division reversed, holding the trial judge abused discretion in excluding the Bradbury note and in restricting habit evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Marroccelli)	Held
Admissibility/authentication of Bradbury handwritten note (statement against interest)	Note was uncorroborated and not properly authenticated; timing and defendant’s prior admissions made the note untrustworthy	Defendant observed Bradbury write and sign the note and was familiar with his handwriting; that testimony sufficed for prima facie authentication and the note was a statement against interest	Reversed: prima facie authentication requirement is not onerous; trial court should have admitted the note and left authenticity/credibility for the jury
Hearsay‑statement‑against‑interest exception applicability	Note could expose Bradbury to criminal liability but still must be authenticated; State emphasized credibility concerns	Note, if authenticated, is admissible under the statement‑against‑interest exception	Held admissible as statement against interest once prima facie authentication shown; exclusion was reversible error
Admissibility of habit evidence (never drive in left lane or over speed limit)	Such testimony was irrelevant if defendant denied being the driver at the time (cannot show conformity if not engaged in conduct)	Habit evidence under N.J.R.E. 406 is admissible to show regular practice and can be used to support a claim she was not the driver	Reversed as to exclusion: the trial court read N.J.R.E. 406 too narrowly; habit evidence should have been admitted for jury consideration
Prosecutor’s use of specific‑instance evidence to show character (608/405)	(Raised by defendant on appeal only) Prosecutor argued specific past assertive conduct undermined defendant’s meekness claim	Such use improperly proves character by specific acts in violation of rules	Not decided on merits (issue unpreserved); trial court error moot on remand but defendant may object at new trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Williams, 169 N.J. 349 (discusses reliability of statements against interest)
State v. White, 158 N.J. 230 (same—trustworthiness of statements against interest)
State v. Cope, 224 N.J. 530 (confession by another is highly probative; admissibility principles)
Konop v. Rosen, 425 N.J. Super. 391 (App. Div.) (trial judge’s gatekeeping on document authenticity limited; leave credibility to jury)
State v. Hockett, 443 N.J. Super. 605 (App. Div.) (reversing exclusion for insufficient credibility—judge should admit prima facie evidence and let jury decide)
State v. Tormasi, 443 N.J. Super. 145 (App. Div.) (authentication standards and limits when judge conducts bench trial)
State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225 (discusses third‑party guilt evidence and its importance)
State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. J.D., 211 N.J. 344 (legal standard for de novo review when legal questions are raised)