Case Title: New Jersey v. Mosley

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2018-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
SYLLABUS

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the
convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the
interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.)

                                     State v. Noah Mosley (A-24-16) (078369)

Argued November 29, 2017 -- Decided March 6, 2018

LaVECCHIA, J., writing for the Court.

         In this appeal, the Court considers whether defendant Noah Mosley’s due process rights were violated
because the State relied on hearsay evidence to prove the violation of probation (VOP) charge filed against him.

         Defendant was serving a five-year term of probation when he was arrested in September 2014. Based on
the circumstances underlying that arrest, the State charged him with a VOP and several new criminal offenses.
Before any proceedings on the new criminal charges had taken place, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on
defendant’s VOP. Detective Michael Carullo of the Edison Police Department was the only witness to testify at the
hearing. Although he was not present during the events that provide the basis for defendant’s charges, Detective
Carullo assisted with the investigation after the events had occurred. He testified based on information that the on-
scene officer, Officer Zundel, relayed in police reports about the incident. In addition to Zundel’s reports, Carullo
relied on a report that he had prepared concerning the investigation and conversations with other officers.

          According to Detective Carullo’s testimony, at about noon on September 7, 2014, Officer Zundel of the
Edison Police Department parked his unmarked police car in a local store’s parking lot. Sometime later, Zundel
observed what he believed to be a hand-to-hand exchange of narcotics between a minivan driver and a Mercedes
driver. When each vehicle attempted to leave the parking lot, Zundel ordered them to stop. The minivan driver
complied, but the Mercedes driver did not. Zundel was unable to stop the Mercedes from speeding out of the
parking lot. A consent search of the minivan yielded approximately twenty bags of heroin. The driver of the
minivan and a bystander to the episode in the parking lot provided descriptions of the Mercedes driver. Carullo
testified that he joined Zundel in working on the case and eventually uncovered evidence that pointed to defendant
as the driver of the Mercedes. Zundel was asked to view a photograph of defendant, and based on the photo, Zundel
identified defendant as the Mercedes driver that he observed.

         During the VOP hearing, Detective Carullo was unable to provide details of the encounter between Zundel
and defendant that led to defendant’s arrest. Several times during his testimony, Carullo’s recollection had to be
refreshed. He read from Zundel’s report. He also refreshed his recollection by reviewing his own report containing
information secured from other third parties. At the close of the evidence, defense counsel objected to the State’s
use of hearsay and argued that the State had not carried its burden of proof on defendant’s probation violation
charge. The State declined to produce more evidence, arguing that hearsay is admissible in VOP hearings and that
the standard of proof is lower in such hearings than in a typical criminal trial. The court agreed.

         Defendant appealed, arguing that he was denied due process by the admission and use of hearsay in the
VOP hearing. The Appellate Division rejected the argument and affirmed. The panel reasoned that a trial court may
rely on hearsay evidence so long as it is “demonstrably reliable.” The panel determined that Carullo’s testimony
met that standard because he had “actively investigated defendant’s actions” and had extensive experience
“interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence against those being investigated.”

         The Court granted certification “limited to the issue of the trial court’s acceptance of hearsay testimony as
proof that defendant committed a new offense in violation of probation.” 
228 N.J. 433 (2016).

HELD: Hearsay is generally admissible in a VOP hearing. When assessing the State’s ability to rely on hearsay to
satisfy its proof obligation without contravening a defendant’s due process rights, a court fundamentally should
consider the State’s reasons for relying on hearsay forms of evidence and the reliability of the evidence for its proposed
purpose. In this matter, the State failed to provide any justification for relying on hearsay, and the hearsay evidence
was not sufficiently reliable for its asserted purpose of substantiating the new criminal charges against defendant.

                                                           1
1. “The court, if satisfied that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial requirement
imposed as a condition of the order or if he has been convicted of another offense, may revoke the . . . probation and
sentence or resentence the defendant, as provided in this section.” 
N.J.S.A. 2C:45-3(a)(4) (emphasis added). The
State bears the burden of proving the charges by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Reyes, 
207 N.J. Super. 126, 137 (App. Div. 1986). At the VOP hearing, a defendant has the specific rights “to hear and controvert the
evidence against him, to offer evidence in his defense, and to be represented by counsel.” 
N.J.S.A. 2C:45-4. A
probationer in a VOP proceeding has the overlay of the protections of due process. For VOP hearings, the minimal
process required must include “the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer
specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation).” Morrissey v. Brewer,