State v. Smith
212 N.J. 365
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Priester, a drug dealer, was shot in his car outside a Deli in Ewing, NJ, on Dec 31, 2001; defendant Butter is charged with Priester’s murder and convicted at trial.
- Roberts (alleged shooter) gave alibis placing him at a barber shop; the State tied Butter to the plan through Bellinger and Johnson.
- Holt obtained Roberts’s cell records via a communications data warrant after Dickerson identified Roberts as shooter; Dickerson’s prior statements were inconsistent.
- Two toll records for defendant and Bellinger were obtained when service providers forwarded toll-billing data in error; no warrants initially issued for those records.
- Ballistics linked a Monmouth County gun to Priester’s murder, creating an independent thread to Bellinger and Johnson.
- Defendant and Bellinger’s toll records, and statements from Bellinger and Johnson, were used at trial alongside other independent evidence to convict Butter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| suppression of toll records based on warrants | Smith asserts inevitable discovery/independent source allow admission | State cannot prove proper probable cause independent of tainted info | Yes; suppression affirmed (records excluded) |
| independent-source vs. flagrant misconduct | State argues independent source salvages evidence | Holt’s deceit constitutes flagrant misconduct | Independent source fails; misconduct taints evidence |
| Ceccolini attenuation vs. harmless error | Evidence minimally connected to key witnesses | Attenuation analysis applicable | Court did not reach Ceccolini analysis; main ruling on suppression stands |
| prosecutorial misconduct in summation | Prosecutor’s remarks properly rebut defense | Remarks were prejudicial and improper | No reversible error; statements not egregious enough for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Sugar v. State, 108 N.J. 151 (N.J. 1987) (establishes inevitable discovery elements and clear-and-convincing burden)
- Sugar II, 100 N.J. 214 (N.J. 1985) (expands inevitable discovery framework)
- Sugar III, 108 N.J. 151 (N.J. 1987) (clarifies elements may be shown cumulatively by clear and convincing evidence)
- Holland, 176 N.J. 344 (N.J. 2003) (independent-source framework and three-pronged test under Article I, para. 7)
- State v. Howery, 80 N.J. 563 (N.J. 1979) (warrant affidavits must be accurate; material omissions analyzed for probable cause)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (standard for challenging affidavits with intentional misrepresentations)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (fruit of the poisonous tree; exclusionary rule deterrence)
- State v. Edmonds, 211 N.J. 117 (N.J. 2012) (probative standard for warrant-based searches under NJ Constitution)