STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LORETTA C. BURROUGHS (14-04-0789, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4590-14T2

Background

Defendant Loretta Burroughs was tried and convicted of murdering her husband, Daniel Burroughs, and hindering apprehension; sentence: 55 years subject to NERA.
In 2013 detectives found dismembered human remains in Tupperware in defendant’s Ventnor home; remains were forensically identified as Daniel.
After Daniel’s disappearance in 2007, defendant repeatedly told friends and family he left for Florida with another woman, sold belongings, and asked others to help sell his tools and property.
Evidence at trial included inconsistent statements by defendant, a taped phone call, a notarized (but possibly back-dated or altered) power of attorney, sales of Daniel’s property, and the discovery of decomposition and saw/knife trauma on the remains.
Pretrial, the court ruled two 1996 convictions (theft by illegal retention and federal bank fraud) admissible in a sanitized form for impeachment if defendant testified; defendant did not ultimately testify.
Defendant challenged (1) alleged prosecutorial misconduct in opening and summation, (2) admissibility of the 1996 convictions under N.J.R.E. 609, and (3) sentencing factors and denial of mitigating factor seven.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor's opening allusion to "Little Red Riding Hood"	Metaphor highlighted theme that appearances can deceive; permissible forceful rhetoric.	The wolf analogy and other characterizing comments were degrading and prejudicial.	Court: Opening metaphor and limited references not reversible misconduct; curative instruction sufficed.
Prosecutor's summation urging jurors not to give defendant "one last favor" (i.e., acquittal)	Closing urged jurors to evaluate evidence and reject defendant’s manipulations; argument permissible.	Comment coerced jury to convict, risked confusing burden of proof, and was among most egregious misconduct.	Court: Remarks were improper in tone but not so prejudicial; trial judge's prompt curative instruction mitigated risk; no new trial.
Admissibility of two 1996 convictions for impeachment under N.J.R.E. 609(b)(1)	Convictions involved dishonesty/fraud and, despite remoteness, probative value outweighed prejudice given defendant’s conduct to conceal the murder.	Judge used wrong reference date and failed properly to balance remoteness and prejudice; convictions too remote.	Court: Although trial judge misstated the date, record shows sufficient Sands/Harris factors to admit sanitized convictions for impeachment if defendant testified; ruling affirmed.
Sentencing — weight given to prior record and denial of mitigating factor seven	Prior convictions and concealment conduct supported aggravating factors including risk of reoffense; defendant did not lead law‑abiding life for a substantial period.	Prior convictions were remote; should lessen aggravating weight and support mitigating factor seven.	Court: Sentencing supported by record; aggravating factor six properly considered; mitigating factor seven rejected. Sentence affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397 (permitting forceful prosecutorial rhetoric; single metaphor not reversible misconduct)
State v. R.D., 169 N.J. 551 (trial fairness requires jury decide only on evidence presented)
State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127 (factors for admitting remote convictions for impeachment)
State v. Harris, 209 N.J. 431 (adoption of criteria for N.J.R.E. 609(b)(1) analysis)
State v. Ingram, 196 N.J. 23 (standard for permissible forceful closing argument)
State v. Papasavvas, 163 N.J. 565 (prosecutorial misconduct requires remarks be clearly and unmistakably improper to warrant reversal)
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (prosecutor must avoid improper methods calculated to produce wrongful convictions)
State v. T.C., 347 N.J. Super. 219 (prior, less-serious convictions may support aggravating factor consideration)