State v. David Bass(072669)
132 A.3d 1207
| N.J. | 2016Background
- Decedent Jessica Shabazz was shot and killed and James Sinclair wounded at a Neptune Township motel on December 20, 2006; David Bass (aka Robert Hines) was arrested and admitted shooting both but claimed self‑defense.
- Bass was tried for first‑degree murder, attempted murder, and weapons offenses; a jury convicted and sentenced him to an aggregate 60‑year term.
- Key evidence against Bass included Sinclair’s live testimony about the events in the motel room and the Monmouth County medical examiner Dr. Jay Peacock’s autopsy conclusions (Peacock died before trial).
- Sinclair had been later charged (post‑shooting) with a 2008 first‑degree robbery; pursuant to a plea agreement he pled to third‑degree charges and received probation before testifying in Bass’s trial.
- The State called Dr. Frederick DiCarlo as a substitute medical‑examiner expert; DiCarlo largely read from Peacock’s autopsy report rather than offering an independent written report or wholly independent conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitation on cross‑examining Sinclair about his 2008 plea | Trial court and State: Sinclair already pled and was sentenced; inquiry into resolved/unrelated plea not permissible | Bass: Plea terms and sentencing exposure are probative of bias and impeachment; jury should know plea reduced life exposure to probation | Reversible error: court should have permitted exploration of Sinclair’s plea terms; error not harmless given Sinclair’s pivotal role — new trial ordered on murder/attempted murder and related weapon charge |
| Substitute medical‑examiner testimony (DiCarlo parroting Peacock’s report) | State: DiCarlo reviewed materials and agreed with Peacock; N.J.E. 703 and Michaels/Roach permit expert reliance on hearsay; practical necessity when original examiner died | Bass: Reading and repeating Peacock’s testimonial autopsy report violated Confrontation Clause; substitute must provide independent observations/analysis | Error: Autopsy report was testimonial and DiCarlo impermissibly parroted it; testimony violated Confrontation Clause. On retrial substitute expert must comply with Michaels and Roach standards |
| Intruder instruction under N.J.S.A. 2C:3‑4(c) | State: Victims were invited guests; intruder instruction not appropriate | Bass: Even if initially invited, victims became intruders when they attempted to rob/assault him, entitling him to intruder‑use‑of‑force instruction | Affirmed: “Intruder” means uninvited entrant; because Bass invited them in, no rational basis for intruder instruction |
| Waiver/timeliness of Confrontation objection to DiCarlo | State: Bass waived confrontation objection by not raising pretrial | Bass: Objection timely when witness began parroting report; Confrontation right preserved | Held: No waiver — timely objection preserved Confrontation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Michaels, 219 N.J. 1 (2014) (permits testimony by independent reviewer who verifies and forms independent conclusions about forensic results)
- State v. Roach, 219 N.J. 58 (2014) (applies Michaels standard to DNA/forensic review; prohibits mere parroting of another analyst’s report)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (cross‑examination exposing witness motive is protected; harmless‑error standard for Confrontation violations)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (witness’s probationary status and possible motivation to cooperate are proper subjects of cross‑examination)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements by unavailable witnesses require prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (forensic certificates are testimonial; defendant has right to confront analyst)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (a surrogate who did not perform or observe testing cannot simply repeat another analyst’s forensic report without violating Confrontation Clause)