State v. Rose, 19 A.3d 985

Rose was indicted for murder as an accomplice; the State presented evidence that he arranged for Mosley’s murder while in jail on pending attempted-murder charges, and that Graves and Puglia testified about Rose’s jailhouse discussions and plans.
A Rule 104 hearing preceded trial; the court admitted Graves’s testimony as res gestae and admitted Puglia’s testimony under Rule 404(b) for non-propensity purposes, with limiting instructions.
During trial Rose stipulated to admission of a copy of his prior indictment for attempted murder; the jury received limiting instructions regarding the use of the prior-indictment evidence.
The Appellate Division affirmed, and this Court limited review to the evidentiary issue of admissibility under Rule 404(b) and the status of res gestae; the Court ultimately held the disputed evidence admissible under 404(b) and disapproved of ongoing reliance on res gestae.
The majority concluded res gestae no longer has vitality under the formal Rules of Evidence, and that the evidence at issue was properly admitted for motive, plan, and intent purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior indictment and incarceration evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b).	Rose’s prior indictment and incarceration were probative of motive, intent, and plan.	Such evidence is prejudicial and not probative of the charged crimes under 404(b).	Admissible under Rule 404(b) for non-propensity purposes.
Whether Graves’s and Puglia’s jailhouse testimony was admissible under 404(b) or intrinsic/evidentiary rules.	Testimony connected the charged murder to Rose’s motive and plan.	Such testimony risks improper propensity inference and should be excluded.	Admissible under 404(b) with proper limiting instructions.
Whether limiting instructions adequately safeguarded against prejudicial use of the evidence.	Limiting instructions properly channeled use to motive/intent/plan.	Any use of prior-indictment evidence remains prejudicial.	Yes; instructions properly limited use and minimized prejudice.
Whether res gestae remains a viable evidentiary doctrine in New Jersey law.	Res gestae remains a useful historical concept underpinning certain evidentiary rulings.	Res gestae should be abandoned in favor of codified rules; it invites vagueness.	Res gestae abandoned as a standalone basis; evidence governed by codified Rules of Evidence.

State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (four-part Cofield test for 404(b) admissibility)
State v. P.S., 202 N.J. 232 (2010) (Rule 404(b) context and non-propensity purposes)
State v. Williams, 190 N.J. 114 (2007) (standard for relevance and Cofield prongs)
State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138 (2002) (motive and admissibility context; discussion of res gestae)
State v. Harvey, 176 N.J. 522 (2003) (admissibility principles; references to evidence rules)