STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ALI BASS(11-11-2085, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2423-15T2

Background

In December 2009 Newark police pursued defendant Ali Bass for a seatbelt violation; a high‑speed chase ensued and defendant's car collided head‑on with another vehicle. Defendant was injured and arrested; passenger Arsenio Payton initially pled that he was the passenger and implicated defendant.
Payton later wrote a letter and, at defendant's trial, testified for the defense that he was the driver and identified himself accordingly; defense counsel visited Payton in jail before trial.
A juror‑accessible NJ.com article about defendant and related murder charges was published mid‑trial; defense counsel asked the court to question jurors about exposure (a Bey voir dire), but the court declined after having repeatedly instructed jurors to avoid outside publicity.
During summation the prosecutor suggested defense counsel had "prepped" or influenced Payton; the defense requested a curative instruction which the court refused.
The jury convicted Bass of aggravated assault (2d), eluding (2d), unlawful possession of a weapon (4th), and resisting arrest (4th). The court imposed an extended 20‑year sentence for aggravated assault with 85% NERA parole ineligibility and concurrent terms for the other counts.
On appeal Bass challenged (1) the court's refusal to conduct a Bey voir dire about mid‑trial publicity, (2) prosecutorial misconduct in summation and the denial of a curative instruction, and (3) the legality of applying NERA to an extended term.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mid‑trial news article required a Bey voir dire	State: publicity was limited and court had repeatedly instructed jury to avoid media; no realistic possibility jurors were exposed	Bass: article could have reached jurors; failure to poll jurors . . . violated right to fair trial	Court: no Bey voir dire required; instructions and lack of strong publicity showed no realistic probability the jury was exposed
Whether prosecutor improperly suggested defense counsel influenced Payton and whether refusal to give curative instruction was reversible error	State: prosecutor’s comments were a permissible challenge to Payton’s credibility and responsive to defense argument	Bass: prosecutor’s remarks were an ad hominem attack implying counsel coached witness; curative instruction should have been given	Court: comments were within evidence and fair response; not egregious; no reversible prejudice; curative instruction unnecessary
Whether NERA parole ineligibility must be based on maximum ordinary term rather than extended term	State: NERA applies to the sentence imposed; extended term may carry NERA ineligibility	Bass: NERA period should be tied to the maximum ordinary term, not extended term	Court: Allen does not bar applying NERA to an extended term; 85% parole disqualifier properly applied to the extended 20‑year term
Whether cumulative trial errors require reversal	State: no single error deprived Bass of fair trial; overall proceedings were fair	Bass: combined errors deprived him of a fair trial	Court: errors (if any) were not prejudicial; convictions and sentence affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 45 (trial court must determine whether mid‑trial publicity reached jurors and conduct voir dire when realistic possibility exists)
State v. Allen, 337 N.J. Super. 259 (extended term sentence may carry a parole‑ineligibility term; NERA application to extended terms is permissible)
State v. Papasavvas, 163 N.J. 565 (standard for reversing convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515 (prosecutorial misconduct reversal requires clear, unmistakable impropriety and substantial prejudice)
State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397 (prosecutor afforded wide latitude in summation when comments are within evidence)
State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57 (deferential standard of appellate review for sentencing decisions)