STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALBERTO SALAZARÂ (01-03-0349, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0058-15T2

Background

An elderly victim was found after a robbery and died the next day; autopsy attributed death to blunt force head trauma and subdural hemorrhages consistent with recent impact.
Defendant admitted entering the victim’s apartment, taking her purse, and stated she fell after grabbing his arm; he disposed of the purse and a ski mask that tested to his son.
Defense obtained a forensic pathologist report (Dr. John E. Adams) opining it could not be stated with reasonable medical probability that defendant caused the fall that led to death. Dr. Adams died before PCR proceedings.
At trial defense counsel did not call Dr. Adams; instead she cross‑examined the State’s medical experts and argued the confession conflicted with physical/forensic evidence implicating the son. Jury convicted defendant of felony murder (merged sentence: 30 years no parole).
Defendant filed a PCR petition claiming ineffective assistance for failing to call Dr. Adams; after remand and an evidentiary hearing where only trial counsel testified, the trial court found counsel’s decision was strategic and denied PCR.
Appellate Division affirmed, accepting the trial court’s credibility finding and concluding the tactical choice not to present Dr. Adams did not satisfy Strickland prejudice or deficient performance exceptions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not calling Dr. Adams to rebut causation for felony murder	Counsel’s decision was a reasonable trial strategy; cross‑examination sufficed and the court credited counsel’s explanation	Failure to call Dr. Adams deprived defendant of expert evidence undermining causation and therefore constituted deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland	Decision was strategic; credibility findings supported it; no Strickland relief granted
Whether Dr. Adams’ report provided materially different medical causation opinion	Trial asserts report was weak factually and would have risked credibility and diluted the principal defense (that defendant wasn’t the perpetrator)	Report contained a reliable medical conclusion that causation could not be attributed to defendant and would have created reasonable doubt	Court found differences insufficient to overcome strategic judgment and lack of demonstrated prejudice
Whether cross‑examining State experts substitutes for presenting a defense medical expert	Trial contends effective cross‑examination challenged causation without introducing a weaker alternate theory	Defendant contends cross‑examination alone was insufficient; a defense expert was necessary to rebut State’s causation opinion	Court accepted counsel’s strategy of relying on cross‑examination and forensic stipulations; no ineffective assistance shown
Whether the PCR court’s credibility finding should be disturbed on appeal	Plaintiff argues trial court’s credibility finding was supported by record and time lapse explained inconsistencies	Defendant argues inconsistencies and the centrality of causation undermine credibility of counsel’s strategic rationale	Appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility finding and affirms denial of PCR

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (trial strategy decisions are generally not grounds for ineffective assistance)
State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412 (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings)