STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MATTHEW D. ROLLE(15-07-0387, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5239-15T4

Defendant Matthew D. Rolle was tried by jury and convicted of multiple counts: two second-degree aggravated assaults, two third-degree aggravated assaults (against the same victims), third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon; acquitted of attempted murder.
Offense facts: on March 16, 2015 in Penns Grove defendant and two others attacked C.H. and C.H.’s mother R.H.; both victims suffered skull fractures and other serious injuries from blows with a hard object; medical testimony supported blunt‑force trauma consistent with being struck by a hard implement.
Both victims initially declined to speak with police while hospitalized; each later identified defendant in police interviews and testified against him at trial.
At sentencing the court merged counts, imposed an extended 17‑year NERA term for the aggravated assault of C.H., plus a consecutive 9‑year NERA term for the aggravated assault of R.H., and a concurrent 16‑month term for the weapons conviction — aggregate 26 years with NERA parole ineligibility.
On appeal defendant raised (1) failure to give a jury instruction treating the victims’ initial silence as substantive prior inconsistent statements, and (2) that his 26‑year aggregate NERA sentence was excessive and inadequately justified.

Issue	State's Argument	Rolle's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not instructing jury that victims’ initial refusals to speak were substantive prior inconsistent statements admissible for truth	No error — victims gave no prior inconsistent statements; silence was understandable and lacked exculpatory value	The victims’ initial refusals to speak amounted to prior inconsistent statements admissible substantively under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(1) and warranted the model jury charge	Affirmed — omission not plain error; initial silence is not a prior inconsistent statement and provided no substantive exculpatory value
Whether the aggregate 26‑year NERA sentence is manifestly excessive and whether the court inadequately justified consecutive sentences and reliance on deterrence (aggravating factor 9)	Sentence appropriate given brutality, separate victims, defendant’s persistent‑offender history; deterrence finding supported by record	Sentence unduly punitive; judge failed to adequately explain consecutive sentencing and reliance on aggravating factor 9	Affirmed — consecutive sentences justified by separate brutal assaults; extended term and use of factor 9 not an abuse of discretion and did not shock the judicial conscience

State v. Singleton, 211 N.J. 157 (discussing plain‑error standard for unrequested jury instructions)
State v. Weeks, 107 N.J. 396 (omission of indicated jury instruction is a poor candidate for harmless error)
State v. Hammond, 338 N.J. Super. 330 (prior inconsistent‑statement instruction not warranted where pretrial account was blanket denial or lacked exculpatory value)
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (permitting consecutive sentences for separate crimes/victims)
State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for extended‑term sentences)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (encouraging sentencing courts to specify reasons for aggravating/mitigating factors)
State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601 (aggregate sentence must not shock the judicial conscience)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (same principle regarding sentencing that shocks the judicial conscience)