STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. W.J.S. (12-07-1113, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3820-14T2

Defendant (born 1980) was convicted by a jury of second-degree sexual assault, fourth-degree criminal sexual contact (merged), and third-degree endangering the welfare of a child for an incident in June 2010 involving a then-15-year-old victim.
After verdict but before sentencing, juror #9 reported that juror #4 (A.E.) disclosed during deliberations that she had been sexually threatened/assaulted as a teenager and related graphic details to the panel to justify a guilty vote; A.E. had not disclosed this history during voir dire.
The trial court interviewed all twelve jurors, concluded none were influenced and denied defendant’s new-trial motion; the court also found A.E.’s nondisclosure innocent and that jurors based their verdict on the evidence.
On appeal defendant raised four points: (I) exclusion of a videotaped pretrial statement of the victim’s father; (II) prosecutor’s references to defendant’s silence at arrest; (III) prosecutorial misconduct in summation (emphasizing victim impact/sending a message); and (IV) juror nondisclosure of A.E.’s sexual-assault history and her use of it in deliberations.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court on Points I–III but reversed for a new trial based on Point IV, holding defendant was deprived of the opportunity to exclude a biased juror by peremptory challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror nondisclosure and effect on verdict	N.J. (State) argued jurors said A.E.’s disclosure did not affect verdict; no new trial needed	A.E. failed to disclose prior sexual assault in voir dire and later used it to push guilty votes; defense would have peremptorily challenged her	Reversed: nondisclosure had potential prejudice and defendant likely would have used a peremptory challenge; new trial ordered
Exclusion of videotape of father’s pretrial statement	State maintained tape showed similar demeanor; judge found limited probative value	Tape would have shown father’s courtroom emotion was manufactured and impeached credibility	Affirmed: trial judge acted within discretion in excluding tape from jury display
Prosecutor questioning about defendant’s silence at arrest	State: prosecutor cross-examined about omissions in defendant’s voluntary statement; allowed as impeachment	Defendant: references violated Miranda/right to remain silent and were prejudicial	Affirmed: no Miranda violation; references addressed inconsistencies in a voluntary statement, not unlawful silence
Prosecutorial summation misconduct (victim impact/sending a message)	State: summation responses were permissible rebuttal to defense themes and not improper	Defendant: prosecutor appealed to emotion and urged conviction to send a message	Affirmed: no plain error; no timely objection at trial and comments were within bounds of responsive argument

State v. Cooper, 151 N.J. 326 (court presumes prejudice from voir dire omissions but requires showing defendant would have used a peremptory challenge)
Wright v. Bernstein, 23 N.J. 284 (established need to show peremptory use to warrant reversal for voir dire omission)
In re Kozlof, 79 N.J. 232 (absence of disclosure during voir dire deprives party of opportunity to challenge juror)
State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249 (appellate review limits deference when trial findings are clearly mistaken)
State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (standard on deference to trial court credibility findings)
State v. Buda, 195 N.J. 278 (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Kucinski, 227 N.J. 603 (voluntary statements may be used for impeachment)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (plain-error standard requires showing error likely produced unjust result)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (prophylactic rule protecting against compelled self-incrimination)