State v. Santamaria, 200 A.3d 375

Background

Defendant Guillermo Santamaria, a former middle‑school teacher, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and official misconduct for a long‑term sexual relationship with H.B., beginning when she was 14.
Evidence included a recorded dinner conversation (H.B. confronted defendant about sex when she was 14) and a CD of ~65 photographs (taken after H.B. turned 18, ~14 of them sexually graphic).
At trial defense counsel did not object to admission of the photographs and used them in opening and closing to support a defense of a consensual adult relationship; the jury convicted on all counts.
The Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial, finding the photos should have been excluded under N.J.R.E. 403 and N.J.R.E. 404(b); it also criticized prosecutorial comments about defendant’s silence.
The Supreme Court (Timpone, J.) granted certification, reversed the Appellate Division, and reinstated convictions: it held the photos were relevant and intrinsic (not barred by Rule 404(b)) and that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect under Rule 403; it also found no reversible error in the prosecutor’s summation about defendant’s silence.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Santamaria's Argument	Held
Admissibility of post‑majority sexual photos (N.J.R.E. 401/402)	Photos show continuity of relationship and tend to prove a pre‑existing sexual relationship beginning while H.B. was a minor	Photos depict consensual adult activity after 18 and thus are irrelevant to underage‑sex charges	Photographs were relevant because they tended to prove an ongoing relationship that began while H.B. was a minor (admissible)
Prejudicial nature / cumulative/inflammatory evidence (N.J.R.E. 403)	Probative value (volume, intimacy, control/grooming indications) outweighed prejudicial effect; defense accepted/used them	Graphic nature and number were unduly prejudicial and cumulative; should have been excluded sua sponte	No plain error: court mitigated concerns (juror questionnaire, opportunity for 104 hearing) and defense strategically relied on the photos; probative value outweighed prejudice
Other‑acts rule (N.J.R.E. 404(b))	Photos are intrinsic (complete the story/establish relationship and grooming) and thus not subject to 404(b) exclusion	Photos are other‑acts evidence inviting propensity inference and should be excluded under 404(b)	Photos were intrinsic to charged offenses (showing ongoing, controlling relationship) and not barred by Rule 404(b)
Prosecutor’s summation on defendant’s silence (pre‑arrest recorded conversation)	Pre‑arrest silence in private (no government compulsion) can be used to impeach credibility and comment in summation was fair	Prosecutor’s remarks improperly invited inference from silence, violating privilege against self‑incrimination	No reversible error: conversation was private, non‑custodial, no compulsion; comments were proper impeachment argument and not substantive evidence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bueso, 225 N.J. 193 (plain‑error standard and importance of preserving objections)
State v. Cole, 229 N.J. 430 (relevancy threshold under N.J.R.E. 401)
State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (intrinsic vs. other‑acts evidence under Rule 404(b))
State v. Stas, 212 N.J. 37 (limits on using pre‑arrest silence for impeachment)
State v. Deatore, 70 N.J. 100 (no inference may be drawn from silence in circumstances invoking the privilege)
State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347 (invited error doctrine / tactical decisions at trial)
State v. Muhammad, 182 N.J. 551 (prosecutorial remarks and defendant rights guidance)