STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. SUZETTE HINDS-MOHAMMED (06-12-0973, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0789-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | May 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Suzette Hinds-Mohammed was convicted by a jury of first-degree attempted murder and related weapons offenses for shooting her former romantic partner, Devon Robinson, who survived with a retained bullet.
- Events: after a restraining order and a meeting at a scenic overlook, defendant shot Robinson in the head and then in the hand; Robinson subdued her, called 9-1-1, and the gun and leather bag were found nearby.
- Defendant gave a post-arrest statement and trial testimony claiming self-defense: Robinson attacked her, grabbed a gun from the glove compartment, and she shot in response.
- The jury rejected self-defense and convicted; defendant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari was denied.
- Defendant filed a pro se PCR petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel on multiple grounds; counsel was appointed and filed an amended petition.
- The PCR court denied an evidentiary hearing, finding no prima facie Strickland claim; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCR court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claim | State: PCR hearing only required if defendant makes a prima facie showing and disputed material facts exist | Hinds-Mohammed: trial counsel was ineffective in several respects (cross-exam, expert retention, objections, etc.), warranting a hearing | Denied — no prima facie case and no unresolved material factual disputes requiring an evidentiary hearing |
| Counsel’s cross-examination and trial strategy | State: counsel’s cross-examination and strategy were comprehensive and within normal professional range | Defendant: counsel failed to effectively cross-examine key witnesses and used poor strategy | Held that counsel’s cross-examination was adequate and strategic decisions fell within competent representation |
| Failure to retain expert witnesses (ballistics/medical/forensic) | State: expert rebuttal would have been difficult and unnecessary given State’s corroborated expert evidence | Defendant: counsel should have engaged experts to rebut trajectory and lethality testimony | Held no deficiency — State’s expert evidence was strong and retaining opposing experts would not likely have changed outcome |
| Failure to object to demonstrative evidence and witness testimony | State: use of mannequin and testimony (immigration attorney; opinion evidence) was proper or harmless; some issues were raised by defense or stemmed from defense questioning | Defendant: counsel failed to object to mannequin, immigration testimony, and alleged "net opinion" by State expert | Held objections were either unnecessary, properly addressed on record, or not persuasive; prior appellate ruling also rejected mannequin claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (adopting Strickland standard in New Jersey)
- State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (standards for PCR hearings and when evidentiary hearing is required)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warning requirement)