STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JUAN DEL ROSARIO(12-09-1328, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1682-14T3

Background

Late-night brawl outside a South Amboy nightclub on July 28, 2012: security guard M.B. was struck in the head with a baseball bat and hospitalized.
Defendant Juan Del Rosario and co-defendant Heidy V. Valdez were tried; Valdez was observed by witnesses swinging a bat but no witness directly saw Del Rosario strike the victim.
Surveillance video showed activity around Del Rosario’s SUV but did not clearly show the bat strike or identify who took the bat; two detectives (not at scene) testified they believed Del Rosario appeared in the video.
Del Rosario was prosecuted and convicted as an accomplice to aggravated assault and related weapons and obstruction counts; he gave a videotaped Spanish-language statement translated by a police officer.
On appeal Del Rosario raised multiple arguments (many not preserved at trial); the Appellate Division affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of police lay‑opinion identification from surveillance video	State relied on detectives’ testimony identifying Del Rosario on video as probative identification evidence	Detectives lacked personal knowledge; their lay opinions invaded the jury’s fact‑finding and amounted to improper identification/opinion testimony	Reversed convictions and ordered new trial: officers’ testimony exceeded permissible lay opinion and was plain error capable of producing unjust result
Jury instruction on accomplice liability and verdict sheet wording	State argued judge adequately instructed jury on accomplice liability and model charge was given	Del Rosario argued charge was confusing, verdict sheet omitted “accomplice liability” and misstated mens rea requirements	Not reversible error: charge tracked model instructions, clarified accomplice requirements (purposeful intent), omission on verdict sheet was not prejudicial
Sua sponte jury instruction on voluntary intoxication	State: no basis to give intoxication instruction absent evidence undermining mens rea	Del Rosario: intoxication evidence (party drinking) warranted instruction negating purposeful intent	No error: record lacked evidence of extreme intoxication sufficient to negate purposeful/knowing mental state; no sua sponte charge required
Admission of videotaped Spanish statement with non‑certified translator	State: translation was adequate, defense counsel reviewed and declined further challenge at trial	Del Rosario: translation errors deprived him of fair trial and warrant reversal	Trial counsel acquiesced to the statement at trial; invited‑error doctrine applies; no reversible error shown

Key Cases Cited

State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (N.J. 1971) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved trial errors)
State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (N.J. 2011) (limits on police opinion testimony; police may not offer opinions about guilt or interpretations jurors can make themselves)
State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9 (N.J. 2012) (N.J.R.E. 701 permits lay opinion if rationally based on perception and assists jury)
State v. Maloney, 216 N.J. 91 (N.J. 2013) (trial court must instruct on accomplice liability even without defense request)
State v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402 (N.J. 1990) (voluntary intoxication is a defense only if it negates purposeful/knowing mens rea and requires extreme intoxication)
State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374 (N.J. 2002) (to convict as accomplice jury must find shared intent and at least indirect participation)