STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. D.C.(12-04-0882, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-2825-14T4

Victim K.B., 12 in summer 2010, testified to multiple sexual encounters with defendant D.C. and D.C.’s partner M.E.D., including group acts in Lakewood and separate acts in Jackson.
D.C. gave a videotaped statement admitting to at least one sexual encounter with K.B., including use and insertion of a vibrator; he denied some alleged acts and claimed only one encounter with K.B. and M.E.D.
Indictment charged multiple identical counts for three alleged incidents in Lakewood (June–August 2010) and three in Jackson (Sept–Oct 2010); counts did not specify which acts corresponded to which count.
Jury convicted D.C. of three counts (one set in Lakewood) and acquitted him on the other counts, including all Jackson allegations; neither the indictment, verdict sheet, nor jury charge identified which specific acts corresponded to each count.
During deliberations the jury asked whether multiple counts meant separate acts or separate incidents; the court answered they referred to three Lakewood incidents and three Jackson incidents but gave no specificity tying counts to particular acts.
Appellate court reversed and dismissed the indictment with prejudice, finding the lack of specificity created a reasonable possibility of a non-unanimous verdict and double jeopardy problems that could not be remedied by retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of detective’s statement about co-defendant’s out-of-court statement violated confrontation rights	State did not prevail on this point in opinion (court did not reach other issues)	D.C. argued Confrontation Clause violation (raised on appeal)	Court did not decide this issue (declined as unnecessary)
Whether lack of specificity in indictment/verdict sheet/jury charge violated due process and unanimity	State argued convictions valid despite generic counts	D.C. argued jury could have convicted without unanimously agreeing on the same specific incident	Reversed: error sufficiently likely to produce unjust result; verdicts not tied to specific incidents, risking non-unanimity and double jeopardy; dismissal with prejudice ordered
Whether retrial is permissible given acquittals on some counts (double jeopardy)	State would be able to retry if specific conduct not foreclosed by acquittals	D.C. argued retrial would violate double jeopardy because acquitted counts overlap unspecified conduct	Held dismissal required because acquittals leave ambiguity about which conduct was resolved, risking reprosecution for same conduct
Sentencing challenge regarding aggravating factor weight	State supported sentencing court’s finding of deterrence	D.C. argued court failed to adequately explain reliance on aggravating factor nine	Court did not reach or resolve this issue due to disposition on unanimity/double jeopardy grounds

State v. Salter, 425 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 2012) (identical counts without specificity can create double jeopardy/unanimity problems)
State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 (1991) (need for specific unanimity instructions when jury confusion is reasonably debatable)
State v. Frisby, 174 N.J. 583 (2002) (courts must tailor unanimity instructions and verdict sheets to avoid fragmented verdicts)
State v. Wein, 80 N.J. 491 (1979) (indictments must be sufficiently detailed to avoid double jeopardy)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1970) (plain-error standard for unpreserved jury charge objections)