STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEVEN B. TRAINER (13-05-0504, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2378-15T1
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 13, 2017Background
- Defendant Steven B. Trainer was indicted for second-degree conspiracy to commit robbery after a Target parking‑lot purse snatching recorded on security video.
- Video showed a distinctive blue Hyundai Santa Fe; police arrested Trainer after observing a matching vehicle and obtained a statement following Miranda warnings.
- In his statement Trainer acknowledged being the driver of the Hyundai and said he could not recall details of being in the Target lot; he also made comments suggesting he did not intend to hurt anyone.
- At grand jury testimony, the arresting officer—responding to leading questions—stated Trainer "indicated that he was the operator of the Hyundai" but also that Trainer could not recall details of the event.
- Trainer moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the officer misled the grand jury by implying a confession; the motion was denied.
- Trainer pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to a three‑year term (third‑degree range), concurrent to an existing nine‑year aggregate sentence; he appealed the denial of the dismissal motion and raised a claim about OPD refusing to assign a second attorney for a second‑opinion before potential withdrawal of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grand jury testimony misled jurors such that indictment must be dismissed | State: officer's testimony accurately conveyed statements and evidence supported indictment | Trainer: officer's answers suggested he admitted driving in the lot, misleading grand jurors about a confession | Denial affirmed—testimony was accurate, evidence supported indictment, any ambiguity did not impair grand jurors' decisionmaking |
| Whether OPD had to appoint a second attorney to confer about withdrawing plea | State: OPD properly consulted; not required to provide second opinion or replace counsel absent a proper request to substitute counsel | Trainer: sought a second opinion from OPD before deciding to file motion to withdraw plea; argues denial deprived effective assistance | Denial affirmed—no right to a second opinion; Hayes (requiring adjournment for newly retained counsel) is distinguishable; claim of ineffective assistance preserved for PCR |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216 (court reviews dismissal of indictment for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hayes, 205 N.J. 522 (2011) (entitlement to adjournment to allow newly‑retained counsel to represent defendant on motion to withdraw plea)
- State v. Miller, 216 N.J. 40 (2013) (OPD not required to replace assigned counsel simply because defendant prefers different counsel)
- State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (defendant may raise ineffective assistance claims via post‑conviction relief)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial statements admissible only after Miranda warnings)