Case Title: State v. Nathan Cotto

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-56-03

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
(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 interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATHAN COTTO, Defendant-Appellant. Argued September 27, 2004 Decided February 1, 2005 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Alan I. Smith, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney). Elizabeth M. Devine, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). JUSTICE ZAZZALI delivered the opinion of the Court. A jury convicted defendant of robbery, burglary, terroristic threats, and other charges after he and an accomplice burglarized his ex-girlfriend s apartment while she, her pregnant sister, and her young niece and nephew were present. In this appeal, defendant claims, as reversible error, that the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on the State s burden on the issue of identification; that the trial court improperly admitted certain statements as excited utterances; that the trial court erred when it precluded defendant s proffered evidence of third-party guilt; and that the trial court improperly allowed testimony, and the prosecutor s use of that testimony in summation, regarding certain out-of-court statements made by a non-testifying witness. For the reasons discussed more fully below, we do not find reversible error in the trial court proceedings. Q. And then after Pete came back from the Citizen s Club he had a conversation with you and the police? A. Right. Q. And as a result of that conversation -- [DEFENSE COUNSEL.] Judge, I m going to object to the leading questions at this point. [PROSECUTOR.] Well, I m summarizing to get to - [THE COURT.] I m going to allow it. Go ahead. She s going to get to a question. [PROSECUTOR.] As a result of this conversation with Pete and the police did Pete tell you that the man that you said wearing that clothing was - A. Nate Cotto. Q. -- what Cotto was wearing down at the Citizen s Club? A. Yes. Furthermore, during summation, the prosecutor recounted how Tiffany identified defendant repeatedly on the night of the robbery. The prosecutor also stated: Pete came back and said, Cotto was wearing those clothes down there. Nathan Cotto has on what [Tiffany] just described, and he s down at the Citizen s Club now. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATHAN COTTO, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED February 1, 2005 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Zazzali CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY