STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DREU FERGUSON, JR.Â (11-08-0708, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5225-14T1

Background

Dreu Ferguson Jr. was arrested May 26, 2009 after his father's decomposed body was found concealed under the house; defendant was charged initially with desecrating human remains and later indicted for murder in August 2011.
At trial the jury acquitted defendant of first-degree murder but convicted him of first-degree aggravated manslaughter, second-degree desecration of human remains, and third-degree tampering with evidence; defendant was sentenced to an extended life term with 63 years, 9 months parole ineligibility.
Forensic pathologist Dr. Ian Hood performed the autopsy, could not determine a definitive cause of death due to decomposition, and listed manner of death as "homicide" on the death certificate while acknowledging he could not say within a reasonable medical certainty that a homicide occurred and that the manner finding is administrative/statistical.
Defense expert Dr. Jonathan Arden agreed that cause of death was undetermined, that manner of death classifications are administrative and not legal findings, but opined he would also have certified manner as homicide given the concealment of the body.
Additional evidence included testimony about family conflict, the father's disappearance, jailhouse informant testimony (H.A.) that defendant made inculpatory statements, and the father's body being hidden and covered with lime.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Ferguson's Argument	Held
Admissibility of ME's opinion that manner/cause was homicide	ME's testimony about manner was permissible expert evidence and explained as statistical/administrative; did not usurp jury	ME's opinion was speculative, exceeded expertise, and invaded jury fact-finding	Admission of Hood's testimony was not an abuse of discretion; context showed he did not assert legal causation and jury decision remained for them
Speedy trial delay (arrest 2009; indictment 2011)	Delay explained by complex forensic testing, involvement of federal lab, destructive testing and notifications; defendant not prejudiced	Delay of over two years in custody violated speedy trial rights and warranted dismissal	Trial court's denial affirmed; Barker factors weighed against dismissal given reasonable explanations and lack of prejudice
Failure to give cooperating-witness jury instruction for jailhouse informant	Cross-examination and general credibility instructions adequately addressed witness bias	Omission prejudiced defendant; special cooperating-witness charge required	No plain error: court's credibility charge plus defense cross-examination sufficed; cooperating-witness instruction not required
Sentence excessive / aggravating/mitigating factors	Sentencing court properly applied aggravating factors and gave slight weight to mental-health mitigation	Sentence (extended life + 63y9m) is grossly excessive or misweighed mitigation	Sentence affirmed: court followed guidelines, relied on competent evidence, and did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. McGuire, 419 N.J. Super. 88 (App. Div.) (trial court admission of expert evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138 (2001) (appellate review limits on expert admissibility and abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469 (1997) (standards for expert and evidentiary rulings)
State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 17 (2015) (deferential review of sentencing decisions)
State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594 (2013) (appellate standard for sentencing review)
State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221 (2014) (criteria to affirm a sentence under sentencing guidelines)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) ("shocks the conscience" standard for appellate review of sentences)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
State v. Szima, 70 N.J. 196 (Barker adopted in New Jersey and speedy-trial contextual analysis)
State v. Berezansky, 386 N.J. Super. 84 (App. Div.) (defendant bears burden to show speedy-trial violation)
State v. Merlino, 153 N.J. Super. 12 (App. Div.) (factual findings on speedy-trial reviewed for clear error)