State v. Carl J. Garrison(076537), 155 A.3d 996

Background

Defendant Carl Garrison was indicted for multiple counts of sexual offenses against an 11-year-old girl ("Joan") based on abuse alleged to have occurred in Summer 2010 in Alabama and New Jersey.
In July 2010, while in Alabama, defendant and the victim’s sister played a strip poker game; testimony conflicted about who initiated and what clothing was removed. Defendant admitted playing strip poker in a police interview but denied the charged sexual assaults, portraying Joan as the aggressor.
The trial court admitted testimony about the Alabama events (including the strip poker) as intrinsic or otherwise admissible evidence and gave limiting instructions; the State’s expert, Dr. Baker, testified that 95–96% of children who give a credible disclosure have normal or non‑specific exams.
A jury convicted Garrison on multiple counts (including first‑ and second‑degree sexual assault); he received a lengthy sentence with parole ineligibility.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the strip poker evidence should have been analyzed under N.J.R.E. 404(b) and was inadmissible, and in a footnote found Dr. Baker’s statistic was plain error.
The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification, held the strip poker evidence satisfied the Cofield four‑part 404(b) test and was properly admitted with limiting instructions, found Dr. Baker’s statistic troubling but harmless error, reversed the Appellate Division, and reinstated convictions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Garrison)	Held
Admissibility of Alabama strip poker evidence under Rule 404(b)	Evidence is relevant to intent/motive, plan, and shows desensitization/sexual interest in young girls; admissible under 404(b) (or intrinsic).	Evidence was not intrinsic; 404(b) should exclude it because defendant’s state of mind was not genuinely contested (relying on J.M.).	Admitted: evidence met Cofield four‑part test (relevance to material issue, similarity/time proximity, clear & convincing, probative > prejudicial).
Whether strip poker evidence was intrinsic to charged offenses	Intrinsic: direct evidence of sexual relationship and contemporaneous conduct facilitating the crimes.	Not intrinsic; should be judged under 404(b).	Court did not decide intrinsic question because 404(b) admission was proper; thus evidence may stand.
Adequacy of limiting instructions for other‑crimes evidence	Trial court’s contemporaneous and final instructions conveyed the essential limitation (no propensity inference).	Instructions were inadequate because final charge referenced only prior convictions, not uncharged acts.	Adequate: instructions taken together communicated prohibition on propensity use; no reasonable likelihood of unjust result.
Admissibility of expert’s statistic about exams (Dr. Baker)	Statistic explained that normal exam does not rule out abuse; overall context limited the harm.	The 95–96% remark improperly vouched for victim credibility and bolstered testimony.	Troubling remark but harmless plain error: defendant did not object; remark unlikely to have changed outcome given context and strength of evidence.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (articulates four‑part test for admissibility of other‑crimes evidence under Rule 404(b))
State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) (defines intrinsic evidence and explains when uncharged acts may be treated as part of the charged offense)
State v. J.M., 225 N.J. 146 (2016) (limits use of prior‑act testimony to prove motive/intent where defendant maintains no offense occurred)
State v. W.B., 205 N.J. 588 (2011) (discusses improper expert testimony that opines on the general credibility of victim disclosures)
State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136 (2008) (endorses rigorous inquiry for Rule 404(b) evidence admission)
State v. Skinner, 218 N.J. 496 (2014) (explains the risk that other‑crimes evidence will lead a jury to convict for disposition rather than charged offense)