STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHINAZA D. OKEKE (17-11-3255, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1887-19
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Mar 18, 2022Background
- Defendant Chinaza Okeke was tried for terroristic threats and aggravated assault; the jury acquitted him of terroristic threats and convicted him of third‑degree aggravated assault; he received two years probation.
- Three witnesses testified: the victim (identified as E.E./Erica), a police officer, and defendant; Erica and defendant gave conflicting accounts, making credibility central.
- During direct and cross‑examination and in closing arguments, multiple witnesses and both parties repeatedly referenced a temporary restraining order (TRO) that Erica obtained after the incident; the trial judge twice explained to the jury what a TRO is.
- Defense counsel did not object to most TRO references and also questioned the victim about the TRO; the prosecutor and defense counsel both argued about the TRO in summation.
- The trial court gave no curative instruction or limiting charge about the TRO at the time of testimony or in the final jury charge.
- The Appellate Division held the TRO references were inadmissible and, because no curative instruction was given, constituted plain error that deprived Okeke of a fair trial; the conviction was vacated and the case remanded (only a third‑degree charge may proceed on remand).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Okeke) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/impact of TRO evidence | TRO testimony was factual background material; not prejudicial and supported victim credibility | TRO evidence was inadmissible (creates judicial imprimatur) and highly prejudicial; required curative instruction | TRO references were inadmissible and, without a curative instruction, constituted plain error requiring reversal and remand |
| Failure to give curative/limiting instruction | No request was made; any error was waived or invited by defense questioning | Trial court had duty to give a prompt curative instruction even without a request when prejudicial TRO evidence was repeatedly introduced | Plain‑error review applied; error was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result" because no curative instruction was given and TRO evidence poisoned the trial |
| Whether defense conduct invited error by opening the door to TRO evidence | Defense questioned witness about TRO and relied on delay/dismissal to impeach credibility | State first introduced TRO testimony; defense questioning did not rise to invited‑error that would bar reversal | Court found error was not invited by defense because State had already introduced the TRO evidence; opening‑the‑door doctrine has limits |
| Remedy and retrial limitations | No special limitations urged beyond affirmance | Defendant sought reversal of conviction; also noted judge's remark about "allegations of evil" and argued that other evidentiary rulings affected self‑defense proof | Conviction vacated and remanded for retrial; only third‑degree aggravated assault may be charged; court declined to reach other arguments but offered guidance on pretrial resolution of prior‑conduct/self‑defense issues |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chenique‑Puey, 145 N.J. 334 (holding restraining‑order evidence is generally inadmissible because it can improperly bolster victim credibility)
- State v. Vallejo, 198 N.J. 122 (TRO evidence tied to the charged incident is especially prejudicial and requires prompt curative instruction)
- State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567 (explaining curative instructions can sometimes cure evidentiary error)
- State v. Vandeweaghe, 177 N.J. 229 (limitations on opening‑the‑door doctrine when state first injects prejudicial evidence)
- State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (plain‑error standard: reversal if error is clearly capable of producing an unjust result)
- State v. Jenewicz, 193 N.J. 440 (framework for admitting evidence of victim’s prior conduct in self‑defense cases)