STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KAZMECK HOLLINGSWORTHÂ (10-02-0648, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0772-14T2

Background

Victim R.D. was shot multiple times on June 28, 2009, recovered after surgery; no gun was recovered. Several eyewitnesses gave conflicting statements about whether defendant Kazmeck Hollingsworth or another (M.H.) fired the shots. Some witnesses implicated defendant; R.D. later denied defendant shot him. R.D. also admitted a post-shooting phone call with defendant and receipt of $900 from defendant's family.
At trial a witness (M.M.) described defendant as wearing a "khaki inmate suit," though defendant was not in prison garb; defense moved for mistrial and the judge declined, choosing corrective remarks and a jury instruction instead.
Prosecutor argued in summation that the State (rather than R.D.) was the "real victim" and suggested R.D. colluded with defendant to fabricate an alibi; defense objected and sought curative instructions, which the court gave.
Defendant was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of aggravated assault and multiple weapons offenses; sentenced to an aggregate term including concurrent 18-year NERA sentences and an 8-year consecutive certain-persons sentence with a 5-year parole disqualifier.
On appeal defendant challenged (1) denial of mistrial over the inmate-garb remark, (2) prosecutorial misconduct in summation, and (3) manifestly excessive sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a mistrial was required after a witness mischaracterized defendant as wearing prison garb and the court's corrective response	The State argued the witness's mistake was a correctable factual error and the court acted appropriately without declaring a mistrial	Hollingsworth argued the inmate-garb remark irreparably prejudiced the jury and the court's comments compounded the harm, requiring a mistrial	Court affirmed denial of mistrial; the garb comment was not distinctive prison attire, the error was correctable, and trial court did not abuse its discretion
Whether prosecutor's summation deprived defendant of a fair trial by alleging the State was "the real victim" and that R.D. colluded with defendant to lie	The State argued its remarks were reasonable inferences from evidence (R.D.'s family ties to defendant, phone call, payment, meeting with investigator) and were within permissible summation latitude	Defendant argued statements improperly diminished the victim's role, expressed prosecutorial opinion, and misstated the record, warranting a new trial	Court rejected claim: objections were made and addressed; comments were permissible inferences from the record and did not rise to reversible misconduct
Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, including use of aggravating factor (a)(1) and imposition of consecutive certain-persons term	State defended sentencing as supported by multiple aggravating factors, defendant's extensive criminal history, and Yarbough analysis justifying consecutive certain-persons term	Defendant argued (a)(1) was unsupported and double-counted, Yarbough factors didn't justify consecutiveness, and judge failed to account properly for NERA consequences	Court affirmed sentence. It found (a)(1) was erroneously applied but harmless given other supported aggravating factors and the judge's proper exercise of discretion; consecutive term upheld

Key Cases Cited

State v. Artwell, 177 N.J. 526 (2003) (defines "distinctive prison garb" and when appearance in such clothing mandates reversal)
State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117 (1997) (mistrial is extraordinary remedy; appellate review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640 (1984) (trial court best positioned to judge prejudicial effect of comments)
State v. Jackson, 211 N.J. 394 (2012) (standards for prosecutorial misconduct review)
State v. Smith, 212 N.J. 365 (2012) (de novo review of prosecutorial misconduct in summation; factors for evaluating remarks)
State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76 (1999) (prosecutor must confine comments to reasonable inferences from evidence)
State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1 (1998) (prosecutor may argue forcefully but not unfairly)
State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225 (1988) (prosecutorial remarks require reversal only if they infect trial with unfairness)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (2014) (guidance on aggravating factor (a)(1) and sentencing review standard)
State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210 (1989) (appellate deference to trial court's weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors)
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) (factors for deciding concurrent vs. consecutive sentences)