STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. EDWARD A. GAJDEROWICZÂ (14-03-0163, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-0482-15T4

In Feb. 2013 defendant (21) messaged and texted a person he believed to be S.D., a 14‑year‑old, after initial contact on Facebook and in the game Ruzzle; S.D.’s mother, A.R., intervened and then posed as S.D. in texts to the defendant.
Texts from defendant included acknowledgement of S.D.’s age, requests for sexual photos, references to meeting to have “fun,” and arranging a meeting near S.D.’s home.
Police used A.R.’s communications to set a sting; defendant was arrested at the designated meeting spot and, after Miranda warnings, gave a videotaped interview denying sexual intent.
Defendant was tried, convicted by a jury of second‑degree attempted luring (N.J.S.A. 2C:13‑6), and appeals claiming two trial errors raised for the first time on appeal.
Appeal arguments: (1) trial court failed to give preliminary jury instructions (presumption of innocence/burden of proof) and prosecutor’s opening misstated law; (2) detective’s testimony included impermissible opinion on defendant’s guilt/state of mind.
Appellate division reviews unpreserved issues for plain error and affirms the conviction, finding no error clearly capable of producing an unjust result and applying the invited‑error doctrine to certain testimony.

Issue	State's Argument	Gajderowicz's Argument	Held
Whether omission of full preliminary jury instructions (presumption of innocence/burden) and prosecutor’s opening statement warranted reversal	Prosecutor acknowledged presumption in opening; final charge contained proper instructions so no prejudice	Omission of preliminary instruction plus prosecutor’s comment lessened burden and prejudiced defendant	No plain error: final charge cured any omission and evidence of guilt was compelling; omission not clearly capable of producing unjust result
Whether detective’s opinion testimony about defendant’s intent/guilt was inadmissible and requires reversal	Detective’s comments followed review of defendant’s incriminating texts and description of police plan; contested opinion was invited by defense questioning	Detective improperly opined on defendant’s state of mind and guilt, warranting reversal	No reversible error: portions were harmless in view of defendant’s admissions in texts; another portion was invited error by defense; conviction affirmed

State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (discussing scope of appellate review and objections)
State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308 (model jury charges should be followed)
State v. Docaj, 407 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div.) (effect of failure to object)
State v. McKinney, 223 N.J. 475 (evaluate jury charge as a whole)
State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533 (plain‑error standard for jury instructions)
State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186 (definition of prejudicial instructional error)
State v. Nesbitt, 185 N.J. 504 (plain‑error standard in criminal appeals)
State v. Sowell, 213 N.J. 89 (police witness may not opine on defendant’s guilt)
State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438 (police opinion testimony about narcotics transactions can require reversal)
State v. Cain, 224 N.J. 410 (experts cannot opine on defendant’s state of mind)
State v. A.R., 213 N.J. 542 (invited‑error doctrine)
State v. Corsaro, 107 N.J. 339 (trial errors invited by counsel are not a basis for reversal)