STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RICHARD BARGEÂ (08-06-1851, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0385-15T3

Richard Barge was convicted by a jury in 2012 of first‑degree murder and related weapons offenses for the 2007 Thanksgiving night shooting death of Nicholas Syders in a bar parking lot; sentence 57 years with parole ineligibility.
At trial, eyewitness Steven Goldsboro initially gave inconsistent statements (first identifying “Rich,” later recanting out of fear); two jailhouse informants (Gibbs, Munday) testified against Barge; Barge denied guilt and offered alibi witnesses.
Barge filed a pro se PCR petition alleging trial counsel failed to investigate an eyewitness and failed to seek a limiting instruction about a prior altercation with the victim; PCR counsel later filed supporting certifications.
New certification from James Jordan asserted he was a doorman who witnessed the shooter and that the shooter was not Barge, but Jordan said he never came forward earlier because he did not want to be involved.
PCR Judge Blue denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding no proof counsel performed deficiently (no showing defense counsel was aware of Jordan or failed to investigate) and no prejudice from failing to request a limiting instruction.
Appellate Division affirmed, applying Strickland/Fritz and related New Jersey precedent, concluding Barge failed to make a prima facie showing of ineffective assistance warranting an evidentiary hearing.

Issue	State's Argument	Barge's Argument	Held
Trial counsel failed to investigate and secure testimony of an alleged exculpatory eyewitness (James Jordan).	No evidence counsel knew of Jordan; Jordan admits he never told anyone earlier; newly asserted eyewitness could be new‑trial material but does not prove counsel was deficient.	Counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate; Jordan's certification shows an overlooked exculpatory witness.	Denied—PCR court and appellate court found no prima facie showing counsel performed deficiently; no evidentiary hearing warranted.
Trial counsel failed to request a limiting instruction re: prior altercation with victim under N.J.R.E. 404(b).	Evidence of prior altercation was admitted as motive/intent; trial strategy may explain no request; no prejudice shown.	Failure to request limiting instruction was error and prejudicial.	Denied—court held omission could reflect strategy and Barge did not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (adopting Strickland standard in New Jersey)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (requirements when claiming counsel failed to investigate)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (standard for when an evidentiary hearing is required on PCR)
State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171 (newly discovered evidence as basis for new trial)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (supporting authority on affidavits/certifications re: investigation)