State v. Bailey, 176 A.3d 800

On July 24, 2011, surveillance captured Karlton Bailey taking a gun from a victim and assaulting another; police later identified and charged him.
Bailey was convicted in February 2013 on robbery and related charges; a separate trial followed on a Certain Persons (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7) indictment alleging prior qualifying convictions made him prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Bailey declined to stipulate to predicate convictions; the trial court "sanitized" the prior-conviction evidence, admitting only the dates and degrees (not the nature) of two prior third‑degree convictions.
The jury was instructed per the model charge and convicted Bailey on the Certain Persons count; sentencing followed.
The Appellate Division affirmed, calling the sanitization practice "troublesome" but applying invited‑error doctrine because defense counsel had requested/redacted the evidence.
The Supreme Court granted certification and reversed, holding over‑sanitization deprived the jury of proof on an essential element and directing that unredacted predicate information must be available to the jury when defendant does not stipulate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sanitization that limits proof to date and degree satisfies State's burden to prove a prior predicate conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7	State: Sanitization protects against prejudice; defendant effectively consented; alternatively courts may reveal statutory citation, degree, and date	Bailey: Over-sanitization prevented the jury from finding the enumerated predicate element beyond a reasonable doubt; Brown dicta impermissibly shifted the State's burden	Held: Over-sanitization is unconstitutional; when defendant does not stipulate the State must present evidence showing the nature (unredacted offense), degree, and date so the jury can find the predicate element beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether invited‑error doctrine bars relief where defense counsel requested or acquiesced in sanitization	State: Defense counsel induced the sanitization so any error was invited	Bailey: He followed Brown/model charge and did not engage in gamesmanship; error cut "mortally" into his rights so invited‑error shouldn't apply	Held: Invited‑error inapplicable—this constitutional error undermined the jury's duty to find every element beyond a reasonable doubt, so conviction must be reversed

State v. Brown, 180 N.J. 572 (N.J. 2004) (discusses sanitization and model jury charge for Certain Persons prosecutions)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1997) (defendant may stipulate to prior-conviction status; courts should weigh prejudice when admitting full conviction evidence)
State v. Ragland, 105 N.J. 189 (N.J. 1986) (bifurcation and limiting instructions required when proof of felony status may prejudice separate charges)
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (jury must determine every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt)