STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JASON PETTIS (09-08-1370 AND 09-08-1383, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1137-16T3

Background

In October 2011 a jury convicted Jason Pettis of aggravated assault (lesser-included of attempted murder), unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and in a second trial possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Sentences produced a 20-year aggregate term with lengthy parole ineligibility. Prior direct appeal affirmed.
The State's theory: Pettis shot victim Jarred Campfield multiple times after a prior altercation; Campfield initially identified Pettis to police but later recanted at trial. An independent eyewitness, Robert VanAnglen, testified he saw Pettis shoot Campfield.
Pettis filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, principally that trial counsel failed to investigate and interview Campfield pretrial and thereby prejudiced the defense.
Judge Paone (the trial judge) denied the PCR petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding Pettis failed to make a prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland/Fritz.
The judge emphasized Pettis offered no affidavits or factual proffers about what an interview of Campfield would have revealed, noted Campfield’s pretrial identification was admissible (excited utterance/prior ID), and highlighted VanAnglen’s independent identification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PCR court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance for failure to investigate/interview the victim	State: PCR properly denied; defendant failed to make prima facie showing of deficient performance or prejudice	Pettis: Trial counsel did not interview Campfield; Campfield might have provided exculpatory testimony; an evidentiary hearing was needed to explore counsel’s investigation	Affirmed: No hearing required. Pettis failed to produce affidavits or factual detail showing what investigation would have revealed or resulting prejudice; counsel’s performance was not shown deficient under Strickland/Fritz
Whether failure to interview Campfield prejudiced the defense	State: No; pretrial statements admissible and independent eyewitness corroborated ID	Pettis: Interview could have produced exculpatory or inconsistent testimony to undermine ID	Held: No prima facie prejudice shown; omissions were bald assertions without supporting evidence
Effectiveness of counsel’s opening/closing and cross-examination	State: Counsel reasonably challenged identification, highlighted inconsistencies and offered alternative explanations for flight	Pettis: Counsel’s advocacy was deficient and ineffective	Held: Counsel’s openings, closings and cross-examinations were professionally reasonable; no prejudice shown
Whether flight to Illinois/failure to fully explore probation violation shown to be prejudicial	State: Counsel offered alternative benign explanation (family in Illinois); sufficient strategic choice	Pettis: Failure to fully explore left jurors to infer consciousness of guilt	Held: No prima facie showing of ineffective assistance on this ground

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey’s adoption of Strickland standard)
State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (defendant must proffer facts/affidavits showing what investigation would have discovered)
State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. Super. 154 (App. Div.) (1999) (bald assertions insufficient; need supporting factual proffers)
State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 452 (1992) (standard for granting evidentiary hearings on PCR claims)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits on testimonial out-of-court statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (public safety and testimonial statement exceptions)