STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. COBY T. RICHARDSON STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEFFERY RICHARDSON (12-04-1144, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (CONSOLIDATED)
A-4021-14T2/A-4026-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- July 21, 2011: Newark police responded to a 9‑1‑1 call about armed men in a red vehicle; officers pursued a red Ford Taurus whose occupants fled on foot after a crash.
- Police recovered a .45 handgun (defaced), a rifle (assault-style), a high-capacity magazine, tools suggesting hotwiring, gloves, bandanas, and temporary tags in the Taurus; DNA linked Colby to a bandana and Jeffery to a glove.
- Both Colby and Jeffery were tried jointly; each testified they were walking after a vehicle repair/overheated company van and separated to buy drugs, denied owning the Taurus or weapons.
- Jury convicted Colby of receiving stolen property (third degree), unlawful possession of a handgun (second), possession of a defaced firearm (fourth), unlawful possession of an assault firearm (second), possession of hollow point bullets and high-capacity magazine (fourth-degree counts), and resisting arrest; acquitted on some counts. Jeffery convicted of overlapping counts and resisting arrest.
- Defendants appealed, raising Confrontation Clause challenges to the 9‑1‑1 call, sufficiency of evidence for receiving stolen property, juror misconduct, limits on cross-examination/opening, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias, and appellate challenges to sentencing (consecutive terms under Yarbough factors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 9‑1‑1 call (Confrontation Clause) | Call was non‑testimonial present‑sense / excited utterance and showed police reason to go to the scene | Caller was unavailable; statements (including vehicle description) were testimonial and inadmissible without confrontation | Admission upheld: Davis framework—9‑1‑1 caller statements were nontestimonial and admissible as present sense impression/excited utterance |
| Sufficiency of evidence for receiving stolen property (Taurus) | Circumstantial evidence (damaged ignition, screwdriver, temp tag, no keys, transfer to defunct dealer, flight) supports finding vehicle was stolen | No report the Taurus was stolen; State failed to prove vehicle was stolen beyond reasonable doubt | Convictions upheld: circumstantial evidence sufficient; trial court properly denied acquittal motion |
| Juror comment / mistrial | Statement about defendants not watching screen was harmless; judge properly investigated and juror remained impartial | Comment showed bias and warranted dismissal/mistrial | No abuse of discretion: judge followed procedure, questioned jurors, and found no prejudice |
| Limits on cross‑examination & opening statement | Court reasonably limited repetitive or improper cross‑examination and curtailed improper character testimony in opening | Trial judge's interventions were biased and prevented effective confrontation and strategy | No bias or reversible error: limitations fell within N.J.R.E. 611(a)/(b); counsel improperly repeated questioning and made improper opening remarks |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (various statements/questions) | Any missteps were minor, some sustained and cured by immediate instructions; overall argument tied to evidence | Prosecutor commented on defendants’ silence, bolstered witnesses, and otherwise prejudiced jury | No reversible misconduct: errors were either cured immediately, harmless, or waived by failure to object |
| Sentencing (consecutive terms; Yarbough factors) | Consecutive sentences appropriate given independent objectives, multiple weapons, risk of reoffense, and deterrence needs | Sentences excessive and misapplied aggravating/mitigating factors | Sentences affirmed; judge applied Yarbough and statutory factors properly; remand only to correct clerical inclusion of aggravating factor 11 in Colby’s judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454 (sets standard for denying motion for acquittal)
- State v. Moffa, 42 N.J. 258 (evidence review at close of State's case)
- State v. Spivey, 179 N.J. 229 (criminal sufficiency standard)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause—testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (9‑1‑1 calls nontestimonial when addressing ongoing emergency)
- State v. Zwillman, 112 N.J. Super. 6 (trial judge discretion in cross‑examination limits)
- State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (factors for consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing)
- State v. Basil, 202 N.J. 570 (prosecution bears admissibility burden; confrontation analysis guidance)