STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DEON L. BROWNE (15-08-0997, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0371-17T1

At ~1:00 a.m. on April 19, 2015, Trenton officers responded to a report of a light-skinned Black male with a gun; defendant's clothing matched the description.
Defendant fled from officers, was observed holding and then throwing a silver handgun into the side of a house; officers chased, tackled, and arrested him; the gun was recovered.
In June 2016 the State applied for a buccal swab to obtain defendant’s DNA as a reference sample; defense counsel stated non-consent but did not file a suppression motion or otherwise contest the sufficiency of the application.
The court granted the application, the swab was taken, laboratory testing matched defendant’s DNA to DNA recovered from the handgun, and the jury convicted him under the “certain persons” firearms prohibition, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b).
On appeal defendant argued (1) the buccal swab application failed to meet required standards (citing State v. Gathers) and (2) the jury charge was flawed and could have allowed a non-unanimous or legally insufficient verdict.
The Appellate Division affirmed: it held the suppression argument was waived under Rule 3:5-7(f) and found no plain error in the jury charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in permitting the State to obtain a buccal swab/reference DNA sample	State: Defendant waived any objection by failing to move to suppress under R. 3:5-7(f); issue not preserved for appeal	Browne: The State's 2016 certification was insufficient (per Gathers standards) and the swab was therefore unlawful	Waived — failure to make a timely suppression motion or specific objection precludes appellate review; court did not reach Gathers merits
Whether the jury charge on the certain-persons offense permitted conviction without unanimity or proof beyond a reasonable doubt	State: Jury instructions, read as a whole and together with the verdict sheet and parties’ stipulation, correctly required conviction only if defendant had a predicate conviction	Browne: Court’s stray phrasing (“a crime or a predicate offense”) could have confused jurors and allowed a conviction based on a non-predicate crime or non-unanimous verdict	No plain error — isolated wording was cured elsewhere in the charge and the verdict sheet correctly stated the element; conviction stands

State v. Gathers, 234 N.J. 208 (established standards for buccal-swab applications)
State v. Martin, 87 N.J. 561 (Rule 3:5-7 requires timely suppression motion; waiver results from failure to move)
State v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73 (plain-error standard for unpreserved jury-charge objections)
State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554 (jury charge evaluated as a whole when assessing error)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (plain-error framework described)
State v. Johnson, 365 N.J. Super. 27 (App. Div.) (application of waiver rule under Rule 3:5-7)