STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. VERNON J. PARKER(09-03-0830 AND 09-04-1087, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)Â (CONSOLIDATED), A-3133-13T1/A-0373-15T1

Background

Defendant Vernon J. Parker, a former Newark police officer, was tried on multiple counts alleging abuse of his stepchildren; a jury convicted him of one count (count 21) of second‑degree endangering the welfare of a child (EWC). He subsequently pleaded guilty to separate EWC and official misconduct counts pursuant to a plea agreement and received three concurrent eight‑year terms; no timely direct appeal was filed initially.
In December 2013 Parker filed a post‑conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging among other things that his attorneys failed to file a direct appeal; the PCR judge denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
The Appellate Division stayed the PCR appeal to resolve Parker’s direct appeal issues together with the PCR appeal and then addressed both appeals, affirming the convictions and denial of PCR.
Key contested trial matters included: (1) whether count 21’s reference to punching while wearing “boxing gloves” rendered the indictment defective; (2) exclusion of a Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) report from evidence; (3) denial of a mistrial based on allegedly cumulative evidentiary errors; and (4) jury instructions grouping multiple EWC counts.
At trial X.R. (the victim) described repeated physical abuse, including an August 2007 beating in which he said Parker struck him wearing UFC/boxing gloves; the grand jury evidence and photographs did not, however, show Parker wearing boxing gloves (the indictment nevertheless included that language).
At the PCR hearing the court found trial counsel credible that Parker knowingly and voluntarily elected not to testify and that counsel’s strategic decisions (including not attempting to admit the DYFS report) did not constitute ineffective assistance.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Parker's Argument	Held
Motion to dismiss count 21 (indictment alleges punching while wearing boxing gloves)	Indictment sufficiently alleges essential EWC elements; glove language is surplusage and may be removed	Glove allegation deprived defendant of notice; dismissal warranted because grand jury presented no evidence of gloves	Affirmed: glove language was surplusage; indictment alleged essential elements and was not manifestly deficient
Admission of DYFS report (marked but excluded)	Reports were inadmissible hearsay; X.R. had present recollection so exceptions (past recollection recorded or refreshing recollection) did not apply	DYFS report admissible as past recollection recorded or as a writing to refresh X.R.’s testimony; exclusion prejudiced defense	Affirmed: exclusion proper — no showing X.R. lacked present recollection and reports were not used to refresh memory
Motion for mistrial / cumulative evidentiary error (Rule 104(c) hearing sought)	No rule required a preliminary 104(c) hearing for the statements at issue; trial judge addressed objections and gave curative instructions as appropriate	Repeated inculpatory statements attributed to defendant should have been tested by 104(c) hearing; cumulative prejudice required mistrial	Affirmed: denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion; no manifest injustice shown and no rule required a 104(c) hearing here
Jury instruction grouping multiple EWC counts (clumping)	Grouping justified because legal elements identical; judge instructed jurors to consider each count separately and required unanimity	Grouping the six counts invited jurors to conflate proofs and encouraged interchange of evidence between counts	Affirmed: charge accurately stated law, emphasized separate consideration and unanimity, and contained no prejudicial error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39 (2015) (standard of review for dismissal of indictment)
State v. Morrison, 188 N.J. 2 (2006) (prima facie evidence requirement to sustain indictment)
State v. Mason, 355 N.J. Super. 296 (App. Div. 2002) (dismissal of indictment only for manifestly deficient counts)
State v. Branch, 155 N.J. 317 (1998) (indictment must explain offense so accused can prepare defense)
State v. Ogar, 229 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 1989) (surplusage in indictment not grounds for dismissal)
State v. R.D., 169 N.J. 551 (2001) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Goodman, 415 N.J. Super. 210 (App. Div. 2010) (mistrial is an extraordinary remedy)
State v. Jackson, 211 N.J. 394 (2012) (deferential review of mistrial/rulings; manifest injustice standard)
State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117 (1997) (principles on mistrial and prejudice)
State v. W.B., 205 N.J. 588 (2011) (scope and purpose of N.J.R.E. 104(c) hearings)
State v. Pigueiras, 344 N.J. Super. 297 (App. Div. 2001) (limits on requested jury charge language)
State v. LaBrutto, 114 N.J. 187 (1989) (charge must fairly present controlling legal principles)
State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560 (2015) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (application of Strickland in New Jersey)