42 A.3d 172
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- State v. Rose involves forfeiture-by-wrongdoing under N.J.R.E. 804(b)(9) and retroactive application to pre-July 1, 2011 wrongdoing.
- Defendant was indicted for the June 8, 2009 murder of Dareus Burgess; State sought to admit Willie Matthews’ statement under 804(b)(9).
- Trial court denied admission, finding the rule lacked retroactive effect because its effective date predates the conduct.
- Court analyzes whether the rule is ex post facto and whether a procedural evidentiary change can be applied retroactively.
- Court holds 804(b)(9) may be retroactively applied to pre-enactment wrongdoing and reverses/remands for a 104(a) hearing on admissibility of the statement.
- Decision remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of 804(b)(9) to pre-enactment wrongdoing | Rose argues no retroactivity due to legislative intent | State argues retroactivity is permitted under Carmell and related authorities | Retroactive application permitted |
| Ex post facto analysis of evidentiary rule change | Rule improperly expands admissible evidence retroactively | Rule is procedural and does not increase punishment | No ex post facto violation |
| Classification of the rule as procedural vs. substantive | Rule alters admissibility after crime, affecting guilt determination | Rule is ordinary evidentiary rule, not changing burden of proof | Rule falls within procedural category; retroactive application allowed |
| Impact on trial conformity and need for 104(a) hearing | Unclear admissibility meets criteria for forfeiture-by-wrongdoing | Remand unnecessary | Remand for 104(a) hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Byrd, 198 N.J. 319 (2009) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine; supports retroactivity and historical recognition)
- Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513 (2000) (ex post facto limits on evidence rules; four-category framework)
- Muhammad v. State, 145 N.J. 23 (1996) (victim-impact sentencing statute not ex post facto)
- Erazo v. State, 126 N.J. 112 (1991) (prior murder conviction evidence at sentencing; ex post facto discussion)
- Johnson v. United States, 495 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2007) (federal rule 804(b)(9)-like doctrine; retroactivity not ex post facto)