STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. J.R.(10-09-1556, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-6236-12T4

Background

Defendant J.R. was convicted by a jury of sexually abusing his stepson's pre-teen daughter (N.R.) over ~two years; sentenced to an aggregate 18-year term.
On appeal the Appellate Division initially reversed based largely on improper CSAAS expert testimony; the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed that reversal, finding the CSAAS error harmless and remanded to Appellate Division to consider other issues.
The victim (N.R.) testified in detail and consistently with her prior police interview; family testimony corroborated her account of access and her "fresh complaint" to brothers.
Defendant admitted in part to facts undermining his earlier statements (overnight stays, being alone with N.R.); his credibility was impeached by prior inconsistent statements to police.
Trial issues included admission of CSAAS testimony, admission of the victim's hearsay statements through a medical expert, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, various procedural claims, and sentencing challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of CSAAS expert testimony	State: limited CSAAS testimony was admissible and any deviation was harmless given other proof	J.R.: CSAAS testimony was impermissible in admission and scope and misled jury	Court: Supreme Court found CSAAS error not reversible; App. Div. accepts harmless-error analysis and moves to other claims
Admission of victim's hearsay to medical expert under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(4)	State: expert could testify and explain absence of physical findings; statements relevant to evaluation	J.R.: statements were for evidence-gathering, not diagnosis, thus inadmissible and prejudicial	Court: record equivocal but any error was harmless given compelling victim testimony and corroboration
Prosecutorial misconduct (eliciting hearsay, bolstering, leading questions, improper argument)	State: conduct did not undermine fairness; trial court supervised and admonished when needed	J.R.: prosecutor elicited inadmissible testimony and vouched, prejudicing jury	Court: some misconduct occurred but was not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal given total evidence
Sentencing errors re: aggravating/mitigating analysis and weight (including factor 7 and interplay of factors 3,8,9)	State: court properly weighed factors and supported above-midpoint sentence	J.R.: court misapplied factor analyses, gave odd reasoning about presumption of incarceration, and sentence inconsistent with stated mid-range intent	Held: sentencing was within discretion; findings supported by record though some reasoning was quizzical, sentence affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. J.R., 227 N.J. 393 (N.J. 2017) (Supreme Court reversed App. Div. on CSAAS harmless-error grounds and described centrality of victim's testimony)
State v. Pillar, 359 N.J. Super. 249 (App. Div. 2002) (distinguishes statements made for medical diagnosis from those made for evidence gathering)
State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515 (1999) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct that requires reversal only if defendant's right to fair trial was substantially prejudiced)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (policy against addressing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210 (1989) (standard of appellate review for sentencing discretion)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (2014) (criteria for remanding sentences and evaluating aggravating/mitigating factors)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984) (aggravating and mitigating factors must be based on competent, credible evidence)