STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RAHEEM H. ROGERS (14-12-0662, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1798-15T2

Background

Police stopped Raheem Rogers on an outstanding warrant; during the arrest a handgun fell/was observed near him and was recovered; Rogers had no permit.
Indictment charged resisting arrest, tampering with evidence, receiving stolen property, unlawful possession of a firearm/unlicensed handgun, and certain persons not to have weapons (based on a prior drug distribution conviction).
Before trial the State advised Rogers stipulated to the predicate conviction for the certain-persons charge; the judge reserved that count for a bifurcated second phase after the jury decided other counts.
During the second phase Rogers agreed the certified judgment of conviction (JOC) for the prior distribution offense could be admitted; the JOC admitted was unsanitized and disclosed dismissed charges, sentence length, and sentencing aggravating factors.
Jury convicted Rogers on the certain-persons charge; the judge imposed a five-year term with five years parole ineligibility. Rogers appealed, arguing the court should have limited the instruction to the stipulation and should have sanitized the JOC, asserting due process and ineffective-assistance violations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by admitting an unsanitized JOC rather than relying on the stipulation	Admission was proper because parties stipulated and the JOC was admissible to establish the element	Admission of the unsanitized JOC (showing dismissed counts, sentence, aggravating factors) risked prejudice and the jury should have been told only of the stipulation	Court found the judge should have sanitized the JOC but its admission was harmless; conviction affirmed
Whether the trial court should have instructed the jury that defendant stipulated to the prior conviction instead of admitting the JOC	The State relied on the stipulation and treated the JOC as stipulated evidence	Rogers argued the judge failed to limit the instruction to the stipulation, increasing prejudice	No plain error: judge instructed jury on proper limited purpose and presumption of innocence; result would be same
Whether admission of the unsanitized JOC violated due process	Evidence of prior conviction was an element and admissible; limiting instruction cured potential misuse	Unsanitized JOC risked unfair prejudice by revealing sentencing details and dismissed charges	Court applied plain-error standard and concluded no unjust result; error harmless
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by agreeing to admission of the unsanitized JOC	State implied counsel’s agreement did not prejudice the proceedings given instructions	Rogers claimed counsel should have prevented admission or required sanitization	Claims lacked sufficient merit; appellate court declined extended discussion and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1 (1998) (plain error standard for unpreserved jury instruction objections)
State v. Docaj, 407 N.J. Super. 352 (App. Div.) (cert. denied) (error must make it easier for State to convict)
State v. Taffaro, 195 N.J. 442 (2008) (reversal requires reasonable doubt that error affected verdict)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1970) (standard on jury instructions and harmless error analysis)
State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109 (2011) (no plain error if charge did not mislead jurors and limiting instructions were adequate)
State v. Brown, 180 N.J. 572 (2014) (stipulation to prior conviction can suffice without introducing full record; citing Old Chief)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (trial court should prefer stipulation over prejudicial details when proving prior conviction)