State v. McDuffie
164 A.3d 414
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2017Background
- On July 12, 2012 BCPO detectives affixed a law-enforcement GPS tracking device to a BMW registered to Chance's mother, monitored the vehicle in real time, and later recovered the device after a high-speed chase and crash.
- Police observed Chance driving the BMW with a male passenger; Detective Arochas briefly saw the passenger’s face at the crash scene and later identified McDuffie from a motor-vehicle records photo after receiving an unrelated informant tip.
- Neither stolen property nor all reported items were recovered; the BMW contained clothing and phones linked to Chance; McDuffie was arrested later at his residence after resisting arrest.
- At a pretrial hearing Detective Eckert (who installed the GPS) refused to disclose the device model, exact installation location, battery type, or single-charge duration; the trial judge denied disclosure but admitted GPS location data and allowed cross-examination of Eckert.
- Detective Arochas testified he attended Marine Corps sniper/memorization training and relied on that training to identify McDuffie; defendants objected as prejudicial and irrelevant.
- Juries convicted McDuffie (two burglaries; resisting arrest) and Chance (two burglaries; eluding; aggravated assaults on police). Appellate court affirmed convictions but vacated and remanded for resentencing due to inadequate sentencing findings and errors in assessed fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State properly invoked privilege to withhold GPS device specifics | State: disclosure would reveal sensitive law-enforcement methods, risk compromising investigations; provided GPS data and technical datasheet sufficient | Defendants: nondisclosure prevented them from obtaining expert help to challenge GPS reliability, violating due process/right to present a defense | Court: privilege applicable; defendants failed to show particularized need or provide expert affidavit; GPS data plus testing and corroborating visual surveillance sufficed — no abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of Detective Arochas's military sniper/memorization training testimony | State: training bears on witness’s ability to observe and recall details, therefore relevant to identification | Defendants: testimony was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, suggesting special expertise and biasing jurors | Court: training testimony relevant to identification; cross‑examination permitted; probative value outweighed prejudice — admission proper |
| Whether sentencing required remand for more detailed findings (consecutive sentences, aggravating factors, extended term) | State: argues sentences proper but concedes trial court failed to articulate reasons for consecutive sentences and mistakenly applied an inapplicable aggravating factor | Defendants: trial court double-counted factors and failed to state required findings for consecutive/extended sentences | Court: convictions affirmed but sentences vacated and remanded because trial court did not state adequate, individualized reasons for consecutive sentences and failed to articulate sentencing findings |
| Assessment of fines/penalties and victim-fee entries | State: concedes some assessed fees and penalties were improperly applied to merged convictions | Defendants: challenge improper separate assessments on merged counts | Held: judgment must be corrected; fees/penalties vacated or to be corrected on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Milligan, 71 N.J. 373 (N.J. 1976) (establishes governmental privilege to withhold informant identity and balancing test requiring defendant to show need)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (U.S. 1957) (formulates balance between informant privilege and defendant’s right to prepare defense)
- State v. Garcia, 131 N.J. 67 (N.J. 1993) (recognizes privilege to withhold surveillance vantage points and requires particularized showing of need; weigh corroboration)
- State v. Zenquis, 131 N.J. 84 (N.J. 1993) (applies Milligan/Garcia balancing; discusses corroboration requirement for disclosure)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (discusses ubiquity and precision of GPS/location-tracking technology)
- State v. Miller, 108 N.J. 112 (N.J. 1987) (requires sentencing court to state reasons for consecutive sentences)
- State v. Abdullah, 184 N.J. 497 (N.J. 2005) (remand required where trial court failed to explain imposition of consecutive sentences)