197 A.3d 211
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2018Background
- December 2011: Two men (Hines and Gould) shot to death in a car; prosecution charged James Harris with two counts of first‑degree murder and related weapons offenses.
- Key evidence: an October 29, 2011 photo from Harris's Sprint Picture Mail account showing two handguns and .380 TulAmmo (same caliber/ammo type as murder); prosecutor heavily emphasized the photo at trial.
- Police obtained defendant's Sprint data in a communications data warrant (CDW) limited to December 1–16, 2011; Sprint produced Picture Mail folders containing photos without date filtering.
- Detective Farrell reviewed the CD, opened JPEG files (but not the accompanying text files showing dates), and found the October 29 photo outside the warrant period.
- Trial: jury convicted Harris; judge denied suppression, concluding the photo was admissible under the plain‑view doctrine; Harris appealed.
- App. Div. reversed: held opening nonresponsive photos exceeded warrant scope and was not justified by plain view; admitted photo was not harmless given its centrality to prosecution's case; remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of cell‑phone photograph | State: photo was lawfully discovered under plain‑view during review of CDW and admissible | Harris: CDW did not authorize photos outside Dec 1–16; opening JPEGs was a search beyond warrant scope and not inadvertent | Reversed: opening/inspecting nonresponsive photos exceeded warrant; plain‑view inapplicable; photo suppressed and trial remanded |
| Use of good‑faith / exclusionary rule | State invoked analogy to federal good‑faith exceptions and argued harmless error | Harris: New Jersey rejects a pure good‑faith exception; evidence should be excluded | Court: NJ rejects federal good‑faith as a talisman; exclusion appropriate here because violation not harmless |
| Jury coercion after multiple deadlocks | State: judge reasonably exercised discretion to send jury back given trial complexity and deliberation time | Harris: sending jury back after third deadlock coerced verdict; judge should have asked if further deliberation was futile | Held: close call but no abuse of discretion; judge's handling did not require reversal on this ground |
| Motion for new trial — newly discovered witness | State: new witness would not exonerate defendant; it would implicate co‑actor (Ancrum) but not negate guilt | Harris: witness would undermine State's principal witness and likely affect verdict | Held: court did not decide on merits because suppression reversal required new trial; denial of new‑trial motion not reached substantively |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sencion, 454 N.J. Super. 25 (applying deference to trial court factual findings in suppression hearings)
- State v. Boone, 232 N.J. 417 (rejecting admission based solely on police "good faith" where warrant was defective)
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (search occurs when officer manipulates/moves items to obtain evidentiary detail)
- United States v. Stabile, 633 F.3d 219 (plain‑view doctrine applied to some computer file inspections; boundaries are fact‑sensitive)
- State v. Mann, 203 N.J. 328 (articulating plain‑view prongs under NJ law)
- State v. Gonzales, 227 N.J. 77 (prospectively eliminating the inadvertence prong from plain‑view test)
- State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533 (harmless‑error standard for evidentiary errors)