State of New Jersey v. Rolando Terrell, A-0492-11/A-1593-12

Background

Sept. 8, 2008: Four people were shot in a Columbia Avenue apartment and the residence set on fire; two initially survived but later died. Police linked a red Jeep and several suspects to the scene.
Co-defendant Lester Hayes (pleaded guilty) testified Hayes rode with defendant Rolando Terrell, observed Terrell brandish a gun and pour an accelerant, and later heard gunshots; Hayes identified Terrell in a photo array and in court.
A survivor who hid during the attack later identified Terrell by voice as the person yelling during the incident.
Forensic evidence: a defaced Hi-Point 9mm matched shell casings; volatile chemicals (toluene and D5) were found on victims’ clothing and in the Jeep; wiretap recordings and witness testimony connected Terrell to co-defendants and to possession/return of a handgun.
Two trials and a retrial: first trial produced mixed verdicts (some convictions, acquittals, and hung murder counts); separate weapons conviction followed. Retrial convicted Terrell of four murders; appeals raised evidentiary, jury-substitution, prosecutorial-misconduct, and discovery issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of defense expert on voice-identification (N.J.R.E. 702)	State argued much of the proposed expert testimony was unnecessary, risked misleading jurors, or invaded credibility determinations.	Terrell sought to admit Dr. Penrod to explain social-science research on earwitness reliability, stress, confidence, memory decay, and other factors.	Trial court limited many topics as either within a juror's common knowledge, lacking proper foundation, or risked confusion; appellate court affirmed no abuse of discretion given limits and the expert’s failure to apply/justify cited studies.
Admission of State’s gang expert	State argued limited gang testimony explained motive, opportunity, symbolism (e.g., tattoos), and slang (e.g., "girlfriend" = gun).	Terrell argued gang evidence was irrelevant to the charged offenses and unduly prejudicial.	Court applied Torres/Cofield balancing, limited the expert’s testimony, and held the narrow gang evidence was relevant and not unduly prejudicial.
Admission of chemical/fire-debris evidence (toluene & D5)	State contended the chemicals linked the Jeep, victims, and Hayes to the arson and corroborated Hayes’s account.	Terrell argued the chemicals had marginal probative value for guilt and risked misleading the jury.	Court held the chemical evidence was relevant to arson/conspiracy and corroboration; probative value outweighed prejudice.
Jury substitution during retrial deliberations	State supported replacing an emotional juror to avoid mistrial and preserve process.	Terrell argued the judge failed to adequately establish a juror's personal (non-deliberation-related) inability to continue, so substitution violated Rule 1:8-2(d) and required a mistrial.	Appellate majority found the limited voir dire and the judge’s demeanor-based finding sufficient; substitution did not abuse discretion and mistrial unnecessary. Dissent would have reversed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (discusses social-science research and standards for assessing eyewitness identification)
State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554 (permits limited gang-expert testimony and outlines admissibility considerations)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (four‑part test for admitting other-crimes/bad-acts evidence)
State v. Kuropchak, 221 N.J. 368 (standards for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Ross, 218 N.J. 130 (requirements when substituting a deliberating juror)
State v. Jenkins, 182 N.J. 112 (limits on excusing jurors for reasons tied to deliberations)
State v. McGuire, 419 N.J. Super. 88 (appellate review may analyze scientific literature for expert admissibility)
State v. Musa, 222 N.J. 554 (deferential review of juror‑substitution decisions)