STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MAYHEW D. WATSON, JR.Â (14-02-0075, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1645-15T4

Background

Defendant Mayhew D. Watson, Jr. was tried by jury and convicted of second-degree eluding (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b)) after a high-speed pursuit captured on police MVRs; sentenced to 9 years imprisonment.
Chase began after Officer Hemple radar-checked Watson at 46 mph in a 25 mph zone; Watson initially slowed but then fled, drove on shoulders, cut in front of a tractor-trailer, and exceeded 100 mph on Route 295.
Two officers testified and MVR footage from both cruisers was played to the jury.
Defense raised no contemporaneous objections to the jury charge or to Hemple’s testimony; prosecutor referenced multiple potential risks in closing.
At sentencing, the judge denied the State’s request for an extended term, found aggravating factors 3, 6, and 9, rejected all mitigating factors (including factor 11 regarding family hardship), and imposed a nine-year term.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury needed a unanimity instruction identifying which specific risk (to make second-degree eluding) was proved	No unanimity instruction was required; statute addresses risk generally and public safety is the victim	Jury should have been instructed to be unanimous as to what risk was posed; verdict sheet should have specified risk to avoid a "patchwork" verdict	No error: statute involves continuing, conceptually similar acts; no request made and record showed no jury confusion, so no sua sponte unanimity instruction or special verdict sheet required (plain-error standard)
Whether Officer Hemple improperly gave expert opinion testimony by calling a maneuver "very hazardous"	Testimony was permissible lay-observation under N.J.R.E. 704; officer described his perceptions, not ultimate legal conclusion	Such characterization was improper expert opinion by a fact witness and deprived defendant of a fair trial	No merit: statement was common-sense lay testimony about observed driving and could not have produced unjust result
Whether the sentence was excessive or improperly based on defendant's continued denial of guilt	Sentencing court followed statutory framework, found supported aggravating factors and rejected mitigation after individualized consideration	Court improperly considered defendant's denial of guilt and failed to find mitigating factors (esp. factor 11 — family hardship)	Affirmed: record supported aggravating findings; no mitigating factors were supported by the record; consideration of denial did not amount to abuse of discretion or shock the judicial conscience
Whether failure to object below forecloses review	N/A	Objections not preserved but plain-error review applies	Plain-error standard governs instructional claims; court applied it and found no plain error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397 (discussion of plain-error review for unpreserved jury-charge claims)
State v. Singleton, 211 N.J. 157 (presumption that unobjected-to charge is not mistaken and unlikely to prejudice)
State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161 (analysis on when unanimity instructions are required; examine jury confusion and conceptual similarity of acts)
State v. Salter, 425 N.J. Super. 504 (noting unanimity concerns can be addressed by tailored instructions or verdict sheets)
State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 (framework for assessing need for a unanimity charge and risk of jury confusion)
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (standard for appellate review of sentencing—competent credible evidence and correct legal principles)
State v. Yarbough, 195 N.J. Super. 135 (purpose of aggravating/mitigating factors to identify individual circumstances)
State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317 (deferential standard for reviewing sentencing decisions)
State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594 (discussion of appellate review of sentencing discretion)
State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 10 (sentence will be upheld absent a decision that shocks the judicial conscience)