STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TALBERT D. HINTONÂ (14-01-0098, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-5529-14T4

Background

In December 2012, five‑year‑old “Lisa” went with defendant Talbert Hinton to McDonald’s; she later testified he took her to his grandmother’s home, partially removed clothing, lay on top of her, rubbed his penis against her buttocks, and at one point penetrated her anus.
Lisa disclosed the incident to her kindergarten teacher and a teacher assistant on a school bus; school staff reported the statements to the principal, who contacted police. A videotaped police interview and testimony from a pediatrician who examined Lisa were played to the jury.
At trial the jury acquitted Hinton of first‑degree aggravated sexual assault (penetration) but convicted him of second‑degree sexual assault (sexual contact) and endangering the welfare of a child; he was sentenced to an 18‑year extended term with 85% parole ineligibility.
Defense argued (1) admission of multiple hearsay and tender‑years/fresh‑complaint witnesses improperly bolstered the child’s testimony and (2) the court improperly limited cross‑examination about domestic violence and corporal punishment in the child’s home (claiming a third‑party or home abuse explanation), and (3) the sentence was excessive.
The trial court admitted teacher and teacher‑assistant statements under fresh‑complaint/tender‑years exceptions and gave limiting instructions in the final charge; it excluded certain cross‑examination topics as irrelevant or likely to elicit Fifth Amendment invocations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility/Scope of teacher‑assistant "fresh complaint" testimony	Testimony was admissible to negate inference from delay; details were minimally necessary	Testimony included excessive, prejudicial details and no limiting instruction was given contemporaneously	Admissible; details were minimal and contextually necessary; limiting instruction in final charge was sufficient
Jury instruction on tender‑years vs. fresh complaint	Court properly distinguished the doctrines and instructed jury how to use each	Charge placed tender‑years and fresh‑complaint instructions together and likely confused jury	No error; charge clearly distinguished both doctrines and was not misleading
Cumulative evidence/bad‑bolstering via multiple hearsay witnesses and treating pediatrician	Each witness’s testimony was separately admissible but combined testimony improperly bolstered the victim	Multiple, inconsistent accounts undermined bolstering; defense highlighted inconsistencies and jury acquitted on the greatest charge	No plain error; no showing that cumulative testimony produced an unjust result; inconsistencies favored defense strategy
Limiting cross‑examination about domestic violence and mother’s belt discipline	N/A (prosecution)	Excluding questions denied defendant the right to present a full defense and show alternative causes for behavioral change	No abuse of discretion; evidence was irrelevant to sexual‑assault allegation and risked Fifth Amendment invocations; pediatrician had been cross‑examined on domestic‑violence effects
Excessive sentence / weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors	Sentence supported by defendant’s extensive criminal record and risk of reoffense; aggravating factors properly applied	Court misweighed factors and imposed an excessive extended‑term sentence	No abuse of discretion; findings supported by credible evidence and sentence did not shock judicial conscience

Key Cases Cited

State v. R.K., 220 N.J. 444 (N.J. 2015) (fresh‑complaint evidence limited to facts minimally necessary to identify subject matter)
State v. Bethune, 121 N.J. 137 (N.J. 1990) (fresh‑complaint evidence may not be used to bolster victim credibility or prove the underlying assault)
State v. Balles, 47 N.J. 331 (N.J. 1966) (minimal detail by fresh‑complaint witness permissible where it identifies nature of complaint)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (N.J. 1971) (failure to object may suggest tactical choice; plain‑error standard described)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (N.J. 1984) (appellate review of sentencing limited; reversal only where sentence shocks judicial conscience)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (N.J. 2014) (deferential review of sentencing decisions)