STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOHNSLER ERTILIENÂ (14-08-1962, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2501-15T2

Victim was attacked from behind by two assailants (one short, one tall); the shorter punched/kicked and took the victim’s wallet and cell phone.
Police stopped two suspects a few blocks away after seeing them run across traffic; officers observed one (Ertilien) place an object under a patrol car; officers recovered a ringing cell phone from the trunk.
The victim arrived, spontaneously identified the two suspects as his robbers, and an officer called the victim’s number which caused the recovered phone to ring. The shorter suspect had several phones on him.
Jury acquitted Ertilien of robbery but convicted him of second-degree conspiracy to commit robbery, first-degree employing a juvenile in the commission of a crime, and a disorderly persons count of receiving stolen property.
On appeal the Appellate Division reversed only the employing-a-juvenile conviction because the State failed to prove the alleged accomplice’s age, vacated the 11-year sentence tied to that conviction, and affirmed the conspiracy conviction, the NERA six-year sentence, and the disorderly persons conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of proof that accomplice was a juvenile (element of N.J.S.A. 2C:24-9)	State argued evidence supported employing-a-juvenile conviction	Ertilien argued State failed to prove alleged accomplice was under 18	Reversed: State failed to prove age; conviction vacated.
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit robbery and receiving stolen property	State argued evidence (victim ID + recovered phone + ringing) supported convictions	Ertilien argued evidence was scant/unreliable and identification was suggestive	Affirmed: evidence sufficient; convictions for conspiracy and receiving upheld.
Identification procedure (alleged show-up; due process)	State: victim spontaneously identified suspects on-scene; no suggestive police procedure	Ertilien: on-appeal claim that identification was impermissibly suggestive	Rejected: no show-up by police; spontaneous identification allowed; no plain error.
Application of NERA and grading of employing-a-juvenile count	State relied on statute to apply NERA to listed offenses and graded counts as charged	Ertilien argued misgrading and improper imposition of NERA tied to uncertain underlying offense facts	Partially addressed: NERA properly applied to conspiracy conviction; sentencing tied to the reversed employing-a-juvenile conviction was vacated.

State v. Lassiter, 348 N.J. Super. 152 (App. Div. 2002) (when age is element of offense, State must prove it)
State v. Collins, 262 N.J. Super. 230 (App. Div. 1993) (proof of accomplice’s age required to sustain employing-a-juvenile conviction)
State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454 (1967) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (post-conviction relief framework for ineffective assistance claims)
State v. Sparano, 249 N.J. Super. 411 (App. Div. 1991) (post-conviction procedures and review principles)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (concerning witness identification procedures)