STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALEEM MALLARD(07-09-1501, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4703-13T3

Background

On April 17, 2007 police responded to an armed robbery; a witness provided a green car's plate and identified two suspects.
Officers located and followed the car; it crashed while fleeing, both occupants fled and were apprehended nearby.
Officer Hennessey arrived within ~30 seconds, observed the trunk open, and saw the butt of a .40 caliber handgun in plain view under a blanket.
Defendant was tried by jury (robbery acquittal; convicted of unlawful possession of a weapon and resisting arrest) and later found guilty by judge of being a certain person not to have weapons; sentenced to an extended 17-year term with 8.5 years parole ineligibility.
At suppression hearing defendant argued the gun was discovered via an unlawful warrantless search of the closed trunk; defense expert opined the crash unlikely opened the trunk, while police testified the trunk was open on arrival.
Trial court denied suppression under plain view and inevitable discovery doctrines; appellate court affirmed plain view ruling, reversed the inevitable discovery ruling, and upheld the sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of warrantless seizure of handgun (suppress evidence)	Officer lawfully approached crash, saw gun inadvertently in open trunk in plain view and properly seized it.	Trunk was closed and could not have opened in crash; seizure required warrant so evidence should be suppressed.	Plain view exception applies: officer lawfully in position, discovery was inadvertent, gun was immediately recognizable as contraband; suppression denied.
Applicability of inevitable discovery doctrine	If not seized then, the car would have been towed/inventoried and the gun inevitably discovered by standard procedures.	State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that lawful procedures would inevitably have produced the gun.	Inevitable discovery not supported: State presented no evidence that inventory/tow and independent procedures would have inevitably led to the gun.
Jury identification and trial charges (preserved/appeal)	Identification instruction conformed to Model Charge; did not improperly emphasize State's evidence.	(Raised on appeal) Instruction emphasized State evidence and lacked defense identification context.	No plain error: charge mirrored Model Jury Charge and did not bolster State evidence.
Sentencing: extended term and double-counting of priors	Defendant has multiple convictions within ten years justifying extended term and elevated base term; not improperly double-counted.	Court double-counted prior convictions (Dunbar) and relied on unproven/acquitted conduct; sentence excessive.	No abuse of discretion: sentencing guidelines followed; defendant's extensive separate convictions justify extended term and elevated base term; sentence affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77 (clarifies deference to motion judge findings and comments on plain-view inadvertence rule)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (establishes federal inevitable discovery doctrine)
State v. Maltese, 222 N.J. 525 (discusses standards for inevitable discovery under New Jersey law)
State v. Keaton, 222 N.J. 438 (sets New Jersey requirements for invoking inevitable discovery)
State v. Worthy, 141 N.J. 368 (focuses on whether that specific evidence would inevitably have been found)
State v. Dunbar, 108 N.J. 80 (addresses use of prior convictions for extended term and base-term adjustments)
State v. Robinson, 165 N.J. 32 (on limits of judicial commentary bolstering identification evidence)
State v. Ernst, 32 N.J. 567 (false-in-one, false-in-all jury-charge doctrine)
State v. Reininger, 430 N.J. Super. 517 (discusses plain view elements in New Jersey)