STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUAN ROSARIO(09-03-0548, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3488-15T2

Background

In 2008 defendant Rosario was convicted at a first trial of serious offenses (including reckless manslaughter); during that trial he threatened Assistant Prosecutor Catherine Fantuzzi, witness Ernesto Vargas, and Vargas’s family while in court.
Those in-court threats led to a separate prosecution (the second trial) in 2012, where a jury convicted Rosario of terroristic threats and multiple counts of harassment; he was sentenced to an aggregate extended 10-year term with five years parole ineligibility.
Rosario appealed; this Court affirmed his convictions and sentence and the Supreme Court denied certification. Key issues on direct appeal included alleged prosecutorial misconduct in summation and the admissibility/limiting instruction for the prior threats as N.J.R.E. 404(b) evidence.
In 2015 Rosario filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to object to (a) certain prosecutor summation remarks and (b) the trial court’s limiting instruction on the 404(b) evidence.
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; Rosario appealed that denial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Rosario)	Held
Whether PCR court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on IAC claims	State: Rosario failed to make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance; no hearing required	Rosario: Trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor’s summation and to the limiting instruction, warranting a hearing	Held: Affirmed — no evidentiary hearing required because Rosario did not satisfy Strickland/Fritz prima facie showing
Whether counsel’s failure to object to prosecutor’s summation was deficient and prejudicial	State: Summation comments were supported by unrefuted evidence and lawful; objections would not have changed outcome	Rosario: Prosecutor’s remarks were prejudicial and counsel’s failure to object was deficient	Held: Comments were based on evidence and not improper; outcome on appeal would have been same even with objections
Whether counsel’s failure to object to limiting instruction on 404(b) evidence was deficient and prejudicial	State: Limiting instruction was legally adequate; any objection would not have altered appellate outcome	Rosario: Instruction was inadequate and counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance	Held: Limiting instruction was adequate under controlling precedent; no prejudice shown
Whether claims were procedurally barred or already decided on direct appeal	State: Many arguments were or could have been raised on direct appeal and some were previously decided	Rosario: Pursued IAC via PCR to litigate objections not made at trial	Held: Several issues were previously decided or could have been raised earlier; PCR properly denied under Rules 3:22-4/5

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (adopts Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (PCR hearing threshold; prima facie showing required)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (framework for admitting other-crimes evidence under N.J.R.E. 404(b))
State v. Michaels, 264 N.J. Super. 579 (App. Div.) (standards for evaluating prosecutor summation remarks)
State v. Castagna, 400 N.J. Super. 164 (App. Div.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admitting 404(b) evidence)