STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LYNDA STAMBAUGH-LUPO(13-04-0169, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0076-16T2

Background

Defendant Lynda Stambaugh-Lupo, who provided in-home therapy to an elderly victim from 2009–2013, was convicted by a jury of third-degree theft for taking jewelry and other items from the victim's home.
Police recovered numerous pieces of jewelry and sports memorabilia at defendant's house after she admitted some items were in a bag; police seized about 100 items and stored them at headquarters without a formal inventory before appraisal.
The victim identified several items at police headquarters and in photographs; some identified items were returned to the victim and others were returned to defendant; a baseball later proved not to be the victim's and the State did not offer it at trial.
Defendant objected at trial to admission of the jewelry and glove on chain-of-custody grounds; the trial judge admitted the items, finding defects went to weight, not admissibility.
During trial defendant was arrested on a contempt warrant and police seized electronic devices; after conviction defendant claimed police accessed privileged attorney-client emails on those devices and moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of misconduct.
The trial judge held evidentiary hearings, credited the State’s expert, found no police access to privileged communications, denied the new-trial motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of seized jewelry and glove (chain of custody)	State: identification and victim’s photographic identifications suffice to authenticate items; any breaks affect weight not admissibility	Stambaugh-Lupo: complete absence of uninterrupted chain of custody; items possibly substituted or not stolen from victim	Admission affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; defects went to weight, not admissibility
Admission of baseball memorabilia	State: did not offer the autographed baseball after discovering mismatch; glove admitted and used by defense	Defendant: items not reliably linked to victim or defendant	Glove admission not erroneous; defense used it at trial; no plain error
Arrest during trial and defendant’s decision not to testify	State: arrest lawful based on alleged contempt; defendant’s election not to testify was knowing and voluntary	Defendant: arrest disrupted ability to testify, warranting new trial	No relief: record shows defendant knowingly waived testimony; claim lacks merit
Alleged post-seizure access to electronic devices and attorney-client emails (newly discovered evidence / Sixth Amendment)	State: expert testimony credited that devices were not accessed; no evidentiary basis for constitutional violation	Defendant: husband’s certification alleged outside IP accessed attorney-client emails while devices in custody, requiring a new trial	Denied: trial judge’s factual finding that devices were not accessed is supported by credible evidence; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Brown, 99 N.J. Super. 22 (App. Div. 1968) (chain-of-custody determinations are within trial court discretion)
State v. Mosner, 407 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 2009) (admissibility requires reasonable probability item unchanged; defects go to weight)
State v. Brunson, 132 N.J. 377 (1993) (State need not exclude every possibility of substitution or change)
State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383 (1998) (chain-of-custody issues generally affect weight, not admissibility)
State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390 (2015) (deference to trial court evidentiary rulings absent abuse of discretion)
State v. Harris, 209 N.J. 431 (2012) (standard for reviewing trial court evidentiary decisions)
State v. Ways, 180 N.J. 171 (2004) (standard for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300 (1981) (factors for granting new trial on newly discovered evidence)
State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 (2007) (appellate deference to trial court factual findings supported by credible evidence)
State v. Mazzarisi, 440 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 2015) (Sixth Amendment issues where police allegedly recorded communications between defendant and counsel)

Affirmed.