STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ANDRE FIGUEROA (17-02-0220, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5383-17

Background

Late-night December patrol in a mostly unoccupied Bradley Beach neighborhood; Officer Redmond saw Figueroa emerge between two houses wearing dark clothing and a red‑light headlamp, carrying a bag and pushing a bicycle.
Redmond followed after Figueroa ran to his bicycle and rode on the sidewalk (an ordinance violation); Figueroa refused multiple orders to stop, fled into an empty restaurant parking lot, and was tackled and handcuffed after backup arrived.
Items recovered from Figueroa included black gloves, a red headlamp, keys, and a gym bag with a bottle of gin; the victim’s pants containing his wallet, ID, and $2,990 were later found in the back of the restaurant lot.
At the victim’s house officers observed a pushed‑out window with a cut screen, a smudged footprint on the windowsill, and evidence suggesting entry via a window/air‑conditioner or an unlocked door; photographs were admitted.
Officer Tardio was present at the scene but did not testify; defense never requested a Clawans adverse‑inference instruction at the close of the State’s case.
Jury convicted Figueroa of burglary and theft (third‑degree) and obstruction (fourth‑degree); on appeal he argued the court should have given a Clawans charge (or that the court’s answer to a jury question effectively shifted the burden), that hearsay violated confrontation, and that obstruction conviction lacked sufficient proof.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Figueroa's Argument	Held
Whether a Clawans adverse‑inference instruction was required in response to the jury's question	No—defense never timely requested Clawans; Tardio was available to both sides and not peculiarly controlled by the State; court’s answer properly reminded jury the burden remains on the State	The court should have issued a Clawans charge (or its answer improperly omitted essentials and shifted burden to defendant)	No plain error. Defense failed to timely request Clawans; even if requested, factors for Clawans not met; the court's answer did not shift the burden.
Whether victim’s testimony recounting what Redmond said about the method of entry was inadmissible hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause	The testimony was cumulative of Redmond’s live testimony and corroborated by photos; admission was not prejudicial	The victim’s recounting of officers’ statements about entry was hearsay and deprived Figueroa of confrontation	Although hearsay, admission was not plain error; Redmond testified to same facts and photos corroborated entry, so no reasonable doubt as to outcome.
Whether evidence was insufficient to sustain a fourth‑degree obstruction conviction	Flight and purposeful refusal to obey lawful orders to avoid detection/prosecution of theft satisfy obstruction when jurors find purposeful conduct to obstruct detection/prosecution	Stop was based only on an ordinance (bicycle on sidewalk), not a crime; thus obstruction of detection of a crime cannot be sustained	Sufficient. Jury found obstruction as to detection/prosecution of theft; defendant’s purposeful flight supports fourth‑degree obstruction.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Clawans, 38 N.J. 162 (1962) (establishes procedure and factors for adverse‑inference instruction for uncalled witnesses)
State v. Hill, 199 N.J. 545 (2009) (articulates Clawans/Hickman factors in modern form)
State v. Whitaker, 200 N.J. 444 (2009) (plain‑error standard in criminal appeals)
State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263 (1973) (inadmissible testimonial statements that imply out‑of‑court identification should be disallowed)
State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338 (2005) (Confrontation‑Clause error where officer implied reliance on unidentified out‑of‑court source implicating defendant)
State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1 (1991) (harmlessness where inadmissible hearsay is substantially repeated by witness who can be cross‑examined)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (standard for reversal: errors must raise reasonable doubt as to verdict)
State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373 (1988) (importance of accurate jury instructions)
State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567 (2018) (inadmissible evidence reversible only if it raises reasonable doubt about the jury's result)
State v. Williams, 218 N.J. 576 (2014) (de novo review of denial of judgment of acquittal)