STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES E. GRANTÂ (12-09-0849, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5023-13T2

Background

On May 14, 2012 Officers Runyon and Palumbo were fired upon while sitting in a marked patrol car; no officer was injured and the weapon was not recovered. Six counts (including two counts of attempted murder and several weapons offenses) were charged against James E. Grant, Jr.; a jury convicted him and he received aggregate sentences including NERA parole ineligibility.
Key State witnesses: D.C. (a minor, eyewitness/friend of defendant) and two jailhouse informants (Hickmond and Black) who testified defendant admitted shooting at police. D.C. initially gave a videotaped interview on May 18, 2012 and later gave inconsistent statements.
The May 18 videotape (about 1.5 hours) captured D.C., his mother (not called at trial), and Detective Britton. D.C.’s mother made hearsay statements implicating defendant; Detective Britton made comments treating street rumors and informants as corroboration and expressed belief in defendant’s guilt.
At trial defense sought to play short excerpts of the videotape for impeachment; the prosecutor insisted the whole tape be played under the doctrine of completeness. The trial court allowed the unredacted videotape to be admitted as a joint exhibit after giving a limited pre-play curative instruction.
Defendant appealed, arguing primarily that admission of the unredacted videotape (and related testimony) violated his Confrontation Clause rights and that the jury heard inadmissible hearsay and impermissible police vouching; the Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting the full videotaped interview (including statements by a non-testifying witness, D.C.'s mother) violated Confrontation Clause and hearsay rules	The State acknowledged confrontation implications but argued invited error and relied on the doctrine of completeness and a curative jury instruction	Grant argued the mother's out-of-court testimonial hearsay could not be cross-examined and the curative instruction was inadequate	Admission of unredacted tape violated Confrontation Clause and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal and new trial required
Whether Detective Britton’s on-tape and in-court remarks (referring to street talk, unknown witnesses, and expressing belief defendant was guilty) improperly conveyed out-of-court witness statements or impermissibly vouched	State argued testimony explained investigative steps and denied unconstitutional inference of unidentified informants	Grant argued Britton implied superior outside-the-record knowledge and vouched for guilt, violating Branch/Bankston principles	Court found detective’s taped statements improperly implied out-of-court witnesses and expressed belief in guilt; prejudicial and contributed to reversal
Whether the invited-error doctrine bars defendant’s challenge because defense counsel agreed to play the whole tape	State argued defense invited the error by agreeing to play tape; the tape was played with a curative instruction	Grant contended he only sought limited excerpts and capitulated under the State’s insistence and the court’s indecision; no tactical advantage	Court rejected invited-error defense: State urged full tape; defense did not lead court into error; invited-error doctrine not applied
Whether jailhouse informant testimony and prosecutor conduct warranted reversal on due process/prosecutorial-misconduct grounds	State: informant testimony admissible; prosecutors’ remarks were within bounds and jury was properly instructed on cooperating witnesses	Grant: jailhouse-snitch testimony is inherently unreliable and prosecutors improperly bolstered witnesses, shifted burden, and suggested gang affiliation	Court upheld admissibility of cooperating witnesses and jury instructions on credibility; found no reversible prosecutorial misconduct apart from evidentiary errors relating to the videotape

Key Cases Cited

State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225 (N.J. 1988) (standard of appellate deference to trial-court evidentiary rulings)
State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (N.J. 1982) (appellate review of evidentiary discretion)
State v. Swint, 328 N.J. Super. 236 (App. Div. 2000) (appellate-standard discussion)
State v. Cabbell, 207 N.J. 311 (N.J. 2011) (Confrontation Clause preference for testimony subject to cross-examination)
State in Interest of J.A., 195 N.J. 324 (N.J. 2008) (testimonial hearsay and cross-examination requirement)
State v. Basil, 202 N.J. 570 (N.J. 2010) (government burden when defending admissibility under Confrontation Clause)
State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338 (N.J. 2005) (police testimony implying out-of-court declarant can violate Confrontation and hearsay rules)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay rule; prior opportunity to cross-examine required)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary-purpose test for testimonial statements)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors)
State v. Taffaro, 195 N.J. 442 (N.J. 2008) (plain-error standard discussion)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (N.J. 1971) (reasonable-doubt standard for plain error)
Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2009) (jailhouse-snitch testimony not per se barred by Due Process)
State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 262 (N.J. 1973) (police explanation of actions on "information received" permissible only in limited contexts)
State v. Landeros, 20 N.J. 69 (N.J. 1955) (police vouching so prejudicial as to require reversal)
State v. Vallejo, 198 N.J. 122 (N.J. 2009) (prejudicial nature of other-crimes evidence)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (N.J. 1992) (framework for admitting other-crimes evidence)