STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. HECTOR R. DELGADOÂ STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DARRIN S. BRYANT(13-06-1842, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED), A-2329-14T2/A-3012-14T2

Background

In November 2012, Daniel DeChurch was beaten at The Last Chance Saloon; surveillance video and witness testimony showed multiple assailants including Hector Delgado, Darrin Bryant, and James Coles. DeChurch suffered head trauma and a deep thigh laceration.
Delgado and Bryant were jointly tried on multi-count indictments that included aggravated assault, criminal restraint, weapons offenses, and conspiracy; convictions at trial included assault and criminal restraint (and some lesser included offenses).
Delgado was convicted of simple assault (disorderly persons) and third-degree criminal restraint and sentenced to 42 months imprisonment. Bryant was convicted of third-degree aggravated assault and third-degree criminal restraint and sentenced to five years with two years parole ineligibility.
Delgado appealed raising challenges to the accomplice-liability jury instruction (criticizing repeated use of "and/or" and omission of accomplice instruction as to criminal restraint/false imprisonment).
Bryant raised multiple claims on appeal: improper detective testimony about video surveillance, erroneous refusal to sanitize his prior conviction, insufficiency of evidence on criminal restraint and denial of new trial, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, cumulative error, and excessive sentence.
The Appellate Division affirmed both convictions and sentences, rejecting Delgado's plain-error arguments and finding Bryant's claims without sufficient merit (with limited comment and some issues reserved for collateral review when appropriate).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accomplice-liability jury charge wording (use of "and/or")	Charge followed Model Jury Charge; no plain error; parties did not object at trial	Delgado: "and/or" created ambiguity and risk of non-unanimous verdicts (relies on Gonzalez)	No plain error; circumstances differ from Gonzalez; instruction complied with Model Charge and counsel did not object
Failure to give/clarify accomplice instruction as to criminal restraint/false imprisonment	State did not proceed on accomplice theory for criminal restraint; court separately instructed on restraint and false imprisonment	Delgado: omission deprived him of fair trial (cites Bielkiewicz)	No reversible error; accomplice instruction was not required for criminal restraint; Bielkiewicz is distinguishable
Detective testimony about surveillance videos and related evidence rulings	Testimony and evidentiary rulings were within trial court's discretion	Bryant: detective's commentary was inadmissible hearsay/lay opinion that invaded jury province	No abuse of discretion; if any error occurred it was harmless given strength of State's case
Refusal to sanitize prior conviction and denial of new trial / sufficiency of criminal-restraint evidence	Sentencing and evidentiary rulings appropriate; evidence supported restraint conviction	Bryant: trial court erred in sanitization, evidence insufficient for criminal restraint, and denial of new trial	Denial of sanitization and new trial upheld; evidence supported criminal restraint; errors (if any) were harmless
Ineffective assistance / sentencing review	State: general policy against deciding IAC claims on direct appeal; sentence within statutory range and adequately explained	Bryant: counsel failed to seek adjournment, object to ID, challenge testimony; sentence excessive	IAC reserved for collateral review (Preciose); sentence affirmed as within range and not shocking to judicial conscience (court applied Roth/Fuentes principles)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hock, 54 N.J. 526 (legal standard for plain error review)
State v. Gonzalez, 444 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div.) (use of "and/or" in jury charge criticized), certif. denied, 226 N.J. 209
State v. Bielkiewicz, 267 N.J. Super. 520 (App. Div. 1993) (accomplice liability instruction requirements)
State v. J.D., 211 N.J. 344 (2012) (law-enforcement testimony about video evidence and trial-court discretion)
State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127 (1978) (sanitization of prior convictions)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (harmless-error review)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) (standards for appellate review of sentences)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (policy on raising ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (2014) (need for sentencing court to state reasons and factual support)