STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANTHONY F. NOVELLINOÂ Â (11-02-0199, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1085-14T1

Background

Victim Judith Novellino was found murdered on June 19, 2010: stabbed 84 times with a pig mask on her face; defendant Anthony Novellino (ex-husband) was convicted of first‑degree murder and related offenses.
Eleven days before the killing the parties completed a divorce; defendant retained the marital home and a pig figurine; Judith had deadline to remove belongings.
Daughter discovered the body; police recovered an 8" wood‑handled knife under the stairs and the pig mask on the victim; DNA linked the knife and mask to the scene and defendant's blood to a kitchen sink.
Defendant traveled to Washington state after the killing; was arrested there and transported back to New Jersey. Recorded jail interrogations included admissions that he stabbed Judith, hid the knife, discarded bloody shoes and said he threw a pig mask into the bathroom (denying he placed it on her face).
Trial court granted suppression in part, denied in part; recordings (redacted) and the July 29 and July 1 recorded statements were played at trial. Jury convicted; defendant received an aggregate 50‑year term subject to NERA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of pig mask evidence (N.J.R.E. 401/403 and 404(b))	Mask probative to identity, motive, intent, and corroborates admissions and prior statements calling victim a "pig"	Mask was minimally probative and highly prejudicial; should be excluded	Court admitted mask evidence; appellate court affirmed — probative value substantial and not unfairly prejudicial
Admission of recorded interrogations (officers' statements/questions)	Recordings were properly redacted; limiting instructions cured any potential prejudice; statements were not Bruton‑type co‑defendant confessions	Officers' leading comments improperly argued the State's case and prejudiced jury; should have been excluded	No plain error: counsel did not object, limiting instructions given, evidence against defendant overwhelming; any error not capable of producing unjust result
Suppression: voluntariness and invocation of counsel	State proved beyond reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived rights after initiating subsequent interviews; invocations were "scrupulously honored"	Interrogations continued despite invocations of right to counsel; officers misled defendant or offered leniency, rendering statements involuntary	Denial of suppression affirmed: defendant repeatedly initiated follow‑up interviews, warnings were given, invocations were honored, and no coercion/leniency shown
Sentence severity and weighing of aggravating/mitigating factors	Aggravating factors (esp. heinousness and need for deterrence) supported heavy weight and 50‑year NERA term	Judge overweighed aggravators; appropriate sentence would be shorter (argues 30 years)	Sentence affirmed: trial court performed qualitative balancing, relied on record, and outcome did not shock the judicial conscience

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123 (2011) (appellate review of evidence rulings)
State v. Lykes, 192 N.J. 519 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard)
Verdicchio v. Ricca, 179 N.J. 1 (2004) (palpable abuse of discretion discussion)
State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553 (2004) (de novo review when wrong legal standard applied)
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (standards for admitting other‑acts evidence)
State v. Laboy, 270 N.J. Super. 296 (App. Div. 1994) (Bruton context and limits on admitting statements implicating non‑testifying co‑defendant)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (confrontation limits on admitting co‑defendant confessions)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (warnings and waiver requirements)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (totality of circumstances inquiry for voluntariness)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (post‑invocation interrogation rules)
Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) (limiting instruction on re‑questioning after invocation)
State v. Knight, 183 N.J. 449 (2005) (State's burden to prove voluntariness beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Hreha, 217 N.J. 368 (2014) (totality of circumstances and suppression review)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (2014) (qualitative balancing of aggravating/mitigating factors)
State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49 (2014) (appellate review of sentencing qualitative analysis)
State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594 (2013) (deferential standard for sentencing review)