STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STEPHEN F. SCHARF (09-08-1485, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2486-18T1

Background

In 1992 Jody Scharf was found dead at the base of a Palisades cliff; police did not fully document or photograph the scene, moved items, and some clothing and potential evidence were later destroyed or not collected.
The medical examiner initially listed manner of death as undetermined; after a 2006 scene review she changed the manner to homicide based on injury patterns.
Investigators uncovered marital strife, threats by defendant, an accidental-death life insurance policy (≈$700,000 paid), and witnesses reporting Jody feared defendant.
Defendant was indicted in 2009, tried, and convicted of murder; sentenced to life with 30 years parole ineligibility.
On direct appeal this Court reversed; the NJ Supreme Court later reinstated the conviction and remanded; defendant subsequently filed a PCR petition alleging spoliation, denial of right to testify (ineffective assistance), and ineffective appellate counsel for not raising spoliation.
The PCR court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding many claims procedurally barred under R. 3:22-4 and that defendant failed to make prima facie Strickland showings; this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Scharf's Argument	Held
Whether spoliation claims (and failure to request adverse-inference charge) are barred by R.3:22-4	Claims could have been raised on direct appeal; thus procedurally barred	Spoliation claims are grounds for PCR and should be considered on the merits	Affirmed: claims barred under R.3:22-4 to extent they were not raised on direct appeal; alternatively, no bad faith/materiality shown so no adverse-inference charge warranted
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising Scharf not to testify at trial (denying right to testify)	Record shows defendant knowingly and voluntarily elected not to testify after on-the-record colloquies; no deficient performance	Counsel prevented Scharf from testifying; this deprived him of constitutional right and warrants remand/hearing	Affirmed: no prima facie Strickland showing; court and counsel canvassed defendant and he elected not to testify, so no relief
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Scharf at the suppression hearing (to show he did not feel free to leave)	Motion court made extensive objective findings that statements were voluntary; Scharf’s subjective testimony would not have changed outcome	Had Scharf testified, suppression ruling could have been different	Affirmed: no prejudice shown; would not have changed suppression outcome, so no prima facie case
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising spoliation-based arguments on direct appeal	Appellate counsel reasonably selected strongest issues; counsel achieved a reversal on appeal before the Supreme Court; not ineffective	Failure to raise spoliation claims on appeal was deficient and prejudicial	Affirmed: no prima facie showing appellate performance was deficient or prejudicial; strategic choices permissible

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
Fritz v. State, 105 N.J. 42 (1987) (New Jersey adoption of Strickland standard)
Preciose v. Kramer, 129 N.J. 451 (1992) (PCR burden: prove entitlement to relief by preponderance; posture of PCR proceedings)
Porter v. State, 216 N.J. 343 (2013) (standards for evidentiary hearing and prima facie PCR showing)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (1984) (materiality requirement for destroyed evidence to be exculpatory)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (prosecutorial bad faith required for constitutional sanction when evidence lost/destroyed)
Hollander v. State, 201 N.J. Super. 453 (App. Div. 1985) (factors for evaluating spoliation claims and adverse-inference instructions)