STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DANIEL A. CATALANO (15-02-0354, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2368-15T2

Background

Defendant Daniel Catalano was tried and convicted by a jury for third-degree fraudulent use of a credit card and fourth-degree credit-card theft based on unauthorized charges to his father’s Capital One card between March–May 2014.
Victim/father reported the card had been activated and charged without his consent; police linked several charges to Western Union money orders sent to defendant.
Police records showed the Western Union sender used a cell phone number that police located in defendant’s name; Melango (a bail bondsman) testified defendant paid him with the same credit card and gave the same cell number when arranging services. Melango photographed defendant and produced a signed receipt.
During voir dire a prospective juror said she knew Melango and asked if he was a bail bondsman; juror was excused and defendant moved for mistrial, which the court denied.
At trial Melango twice indicated defendant had been in jail when they first spoke; the court gave immediate curative instructions and later limited-instruction explaining the Neptune/Melango transaction was intrinsic evidence only to show access to the card.
Defendant appealed, challenging denial of mistrial/dismissal, admission of uncharged-transaction evidence, adequacy of identification jury charge, admission of police-database hearsay, and sentencing; appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Catalano's Argument	Held
Whether juror’s outburst (knowing Melango/bail bondsman) required dismissal of jury panel or mistrial	Remarks were not prejudicial; court promptly excused juror and later gave curative instructions; juror’s comment did not taint panel	The juror’s remark revealed Melango was a bail bondsman and tainted the entire venire, requiring mistrial/new panel	Denied abuse of discretion; remark was not sufficiently prejudicial and curative instructions remedied any effect
Admissibility of uncharged Neptune/Melango transaction	Transaction was intrinsic evidence (shows possession/use of the card, ties defendant by cell number/photo) and probative value outweighed prejudice; properly limited by instruction	Evidence was an uncharged prior bad act and inadmissible 404(b) propensity evidence	Admission upheld as intrinsic and relevant; trial court gave limiting instruction on narrow use
Adequacy of identification jury instruction (failure to give Model Jury Charge on identification)	Standard instruction was appropriate because no Henderson-style eyewitness-memory factors existed; photo comparison not subject to Henderson charge	Failure to give Henderson/MJC identification charge prejudiced defendant’s right to fair assessment of ID evidence	No reversible error: Henderson/MJC not applicable where jury compared a photograph and memory/lineup-type reliability factors were absent
Admission of police-database cell-phone information (hearsay)	Error conceded as hearsay but evidence was cumulative to Melango’s testimony that defendant gave that cell number	Admission of database hearsay was prejudicial and reversible	Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: database testimony cumulative to properly admitted evidence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Loftin, 191 N.J. 172 (explains right to impartial jury and standard for mistrial/venire taint)
State v. R.D., 169 N.J. 551 (discusses extraneous influence on jury and deference to trial court)
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (sets factors for evaluating eyewitness ID and prompted Model Jury Charge)
State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (distinguishes intrinsic evidence from other-crimes evidence under N.J.R.E. 404(b))