STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. R.K.(13-08-0451, SALEM COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-3540-14T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Defendant R.K. was indicted for sexual offenses against his daughter K.K. (under 13): two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, one count of second-degree sexual assault, and one count of second-degree endangering the welfare of a child. A jury convicted on all counts.
- At trial, K.K. testified in detail about multiple sex acts; her mother S.K. testified as a fresh-complaint witness about a note and statements K.K. made describing specific acts.
- Forensic testing of a bedroom carpet located semen; a DNA expert testified the sperm-fraction major profile matched defendant and that K.K. was excluded from the minor component of the mixture.
- Defendant raised three principal appellate claims: (1) S.K.’s fresh-complaint testimony exceeded permissible bounds and the limiting instruction was inadequate; (2) the prosecutor mischaracterized DNA testimony during closing and the court failed to cure it; and (3) the sentence improperly weighed aggravating factors and the consecutive term on the endangering count lacked adequate reasons.
- The Appellate Division affirmed convictions (rejecting Points I & II) but remanded for resentencing because the trial court did not adequately state reasons under the Yarbough factors for imposing the consecutive sentence on Count Four.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility and scope of fresh-complaint testimony | State: Fresh-complaint testimony limited to nature/time/place is permissible; limiting instruction was given | R.K.: S.K. gave unnecessary, substantive details of sexual acts and jury instruction was insufficient | No plain error: details were limited to identifying the nature of the complaint, not more provocative than victim’s testimony; jury was instructed and any error harmless |
| Prosecutor’s description of DNA evidence in closing | State: Comment accurately conveyed expert’s findings that defendant was source of sperm-profile | R.K.: Prosecutor misstated that exclusion of K.K. was due to insufficient loci and misled jury; no curative instruction | Not reversible: prosecutor misstated a point but defense emphasized exclusion in argument, expert testimony and report showed exclusion, and judge instructed jurors that summations are not evidence |
| Sentencing — aggravating factors | State: Court properly found aggravating factors (relationship/age, risk of reoffense, seriousness) supported by record | R.K.: Judge double-counted youth and failed to justify consecutive sentence | Aggravating factors were properly applied and supported, but remand required because court did not adequately articulate Yarbough-based reasons for consecutive sentence on Count Four |
| Requirement to remand for resentencing | State: No remand necessary if reasons implicit in record | R.K.: Explicit Yarbough analysis required on record to justify consecutive term | Remand ordered for resentencing so the trial judge can state on the record the Yarbough-factor analysis supporting consecutive sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. R.K., 220 N.J. 444 (discussing fresh-complaint limits and review standard) (New Jersey Supreme Court decision relied on for framework)
- State v. Bethune, 121 N.J. 137 (fresh-complaint testimony admissible only to identify the subject matter; not substantive evidence)
- State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (sets factors trial court must consider when imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123 (standard for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice)
- State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109 (requires clear on-the-record reasons when imposing consecutive sentences)