STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH A. LICCIARDELLO(14-04-0294, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-2651-15T2

Defendant Joseph Licciardello (20) was indicted for criminal sexual contact, criminal restraint, and attempted sexual assault after an incident with 17-year-old V.P. in his car following tailgating.
V.P. testified defendant pulled the car over twice, held her down, ripped her underwear, and continued despite her saying “no”; photos of neck marks and the torn underwear were admitted.
Defendant gave a recorded statement admitting he was drunk, tried to have sex, held V.P. by the shoulders, and stopped only after “snapping back” and realizing he was “taking it too far”; portions describing a “bad temper” and sexual habits were not redacted.
At trial the jury acquitted on attempted sexual assault and criminal restraint but convicted of lesser-included false imprisonment (disorderly persons) and attempted criminal sexual contact (fourth-degree).
On appeal defendant argued (1) admission of the un-redacted portions of his statement was irrelevant/unduly prejudicial and violated N.J.R.E. 401–404, (2) failure to give a Hampton limiting instruction, and (3) jury charge/verdict sheet confusion between attempt and completed offense.
The Appellate Division affirmed, applying plain-error review and finding no reversible error given the record as a whole, invited error, and that the disputed statements were not prior crimes under N.J.R.E. 404(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of un-redacted portions of defendant's statement (temper, masturbation, pornography, consensual sex history)	State: Statement was admissible, relevant to corroboration and intent; redactions otherwise agreed to	Licciardello: Those portions were irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded under N.J.R.E. 401, 402, 403, 404	Affirmed — statements not "crimes, wrongs or acts" under 404(b); even if inadmissible, no plain error given other strong evidence and invited error by defense
Failure to give Hampton instruction on evaluating defendant's statement	State: No reversible error; statement was recorded and accuracy not disputed; defense declined Hampton charge	Licciardello: Court should have given Hampton charge because of interrogation tactics and statement credibility issues	Affirmed — defense requested no Hampton charge; recorded statement accuracy not contested; omission not plainly capable of producing unjust result
Jury instructions/ verdict sheet ambiguity (attempted vs completed sexual contact)	State: Charge and verdict sheet properly referenced attempted offenses; jury understood to consider attempts	Licciardello: Inconsistent instructions could have produced a patchwork verdict between attempt and completed offense	Affirmed — reviewing entire charge and verdict sheet, court concluded jury considered attempted crimes; no plain error

Cofield v. State, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (establishes four-prong analysis for admitting other-crimes evidence under N.J.R.E. 404(b))
Rose v. State, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) (404(b) threshold and plenary review when trial court omits Cofield hearing)
State v. R.K., 220 N.J. 444 (2015) (plain-error standard for improperly admitted evidence; whether reasonable doubt raised that jury reached different result)
Hampton v. State, 61 N.J. 250 (1972) (requires jury instruction on evaluation of defendant statements/confessions)
Jordan v. State, 147 N.J. 409 (1997) (clarifies when Hampton instruction is required and reversible omission analysis)
Baum v. State, 224 N.J. 147 (2016) (jury-charge clarity required; review focuses on totality of charge)