STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. T.R.G.(13-01-0003, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-5308-14T2

Background

Defendant (T.R.G.) was convicted by a jury of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and related second-degree offenses for sexual abuse of his step-granddaughters; the court merged counts and sentenced him to 16 years with 85% parole ineligibility under NERA.
Victims (Ann, Barbara, Cathy) testified to repeated sexual contact and a "tickle game" by defendant between 2010 and 2012; medical exams showed dysuria in one child but no acute genital trauma.
The victims' father (Ted) testified; defense sought to admit testimony from defendant's former attorney recounting Ted's earlier expression of disbelief in Ann's allegations—court limited that testimony as improper opinion/hearsay.
During trial defendant testified, invoked the Fifth on cross about post-bail contacts, then left the courthouse; the judge struck his testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it.
Defense challenged evidentiary exclusions, prosecutor's opening/closing statements (including a remark that the presumption of innocence was "gone"), the striking of testimony after assertion of the Fifth, and the sentence; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of former-attorney testimony about Ted's prior statement that he didn’t believe victim	The limited testimony admitted (that Ted made inconsistent statements) was sufficient; opinion about credibility was inadmissible.	Trial court wrongly precluded testimony that Ted expressed disbelief in the accusations, which would show bias/instigation.	Court upheld exclusion of opinion as hearsay/lay-opinion; allowed only impeachment that Ted made inconsistent statements.
Prosecutor's closing: "presumption of innocence is gone"	Prosecutor argued evidence had "torn down" the presumption; closing was a misstatement but fleeting and cured by jury instructions.	Statement diluted burden of proof and was prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal.	No plain error: judge properly instructed jury on presumption/burden; remark not clearly capable of producing unjust result.
Prosecutor's opening: descriptive language and "represent the people" phrasing	State: opening comments described evidence to be presented and were permissible.	Language was prejudicial, aligning jury with State and inflaming emotions.	Remarks were not egregious; defense did not object; judge instructed jurors to weigh evidence impartially; no reversal.
Striking defendant’s testimony after he invoked Fifth and left courthouse	State: once defendant took the stand he waived privilege and could not refuse cross; leaving and invoking Fifth justified striking testimony.	Striking testimony after he asserted the right to silence and left deprived him of due process and right to present a defense.	No plain error: taking the stand waives privilege for cross; refusal to continue and leaving justified striking testimony; counsel performance deferred to PCR.
Sentence (16 years with NERA)	State: sentence within statutory range and properly balanced aggravating/mitigating factors.	Sentence excessive and court failed to consider real-time effect of NERA.	Affirmed: court identified and weighed factors; sentence not clearly unreasonable.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pasha, 280 N.J. Super. 265 (App. Div.) (limits on prior inconsistent statements and improper opinion testimony)
State v. Frisby, 174 N.J. 583 (jury decides witness credibility; one witness cannot opine on another's truthfulness)
State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515 (comments by prosecutor not objected to are reviewed under plain error; jury instructions presumed followed)
State v. Bogus, 223 N.J. Super. 409 (defendant who testifies waives Fifth Amendment privilege as to cross-examination)
State v. Feaster, 184 N.J. 235 (court should strike direct testimony if witness relies on privilege to avoid cross-examination on central matters)
State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210 (sentencing requires identification and balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors)