SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0981-21 

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

HAROLD K. COLBERT, 

a/k/a ABDUL COLBERT, 

and KAREEM JONES, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_______________________

Argued October 3, 2023 – Decided January 9, 2024 

Before Judges Sumners, Rose and Perez Friscia. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 19-03-0612.

Tamar Yael Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender,

argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, 

Public Defender, attorney; Tamar Yael Lerer, of 

counsel and on the briefs).

Emily M. M. Pirro, Special Deputy Attorney 

General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause 

for respondent (Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-0981-21

County Prosecutor, attorney; Emily M. M. Pirro, of 

counsel and on the brief). 

PER CURIAM 

In the early morning hours of November 1, 2018, Daquan Cuttino was 

shot to death outside a Newark residence. The State's prosecution of defendant 

Harold Colbert for the murder was based primarily on testimony of the victim's 

girlfriend, the only known eyewitness, identifying defendant as the shooter. A 

jury found defendant guilty of first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1); 

second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1); and 

second-degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 

2C:39-4(a)(1). Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of fortyfive years, subject to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. 

 Before us, defendant argues: 

POINT I 

 

ERRORS WITH THE IDENTIFICATION 

PROCEDURE, TESTIMONY, AND JURY CHARGE 

REQUIRE REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S 

CONVICTIONS. (Partially Raised Below).

A. Because The State Failed To Make An 

Appropriate Record Of The Identifications And 

A Hearing On The Issue Was Inappropriately 

Denied, Defendant Was Deprived Of A Fair 

Trial. 
3 A-0981-21

B. Because The State Failed To Ask The 

Eyewitness Her Confidence At The Time Of The 

Identifications, She Should Not Have Been 

Allowed To Testify To Her Confidence 

Retrospectively At Trial. 

C. The Failure To Provide The Jury With The 

Requested, Tailored Identification Charge 

Requires Reversal of Defendant's Convictions. 

POINT II 

THE ASSERTION THAT THE NEW JERSEY STATE 

POLICE HAD FAILED TO FIND A PERMIT FOR 

DEFENDANT TO POSSESS A WEAPON WAS 

INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY. ITS ERRONEOUS 

ADMISSION REQUIRES REVERSAL OF ALL 

CHARGES. (Not Raised Below). 

POINT III 

THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN REVERSIBLE 

MISCONDUCT WHEN HE TOLD THEY JURY IT 

HAD A DUTY TO CONVICT AND INVOKED THE 

NUREMBERG TRIALS. (Not Raised Below). 

POINT IV 

THE FAILURE TO PLAY THE MAIN WITNESS'S 

CROSS-EXAMINATION ALONG WITH THE 

DIRECT TESTIMONY, AS WELL AS THE FAILURE 

TO ISSUE ANY INSTRUCTION ON HOW TO 

CONSIDER THE DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT WAS 

PLAYED BACK, REQUIRES REVERSAL. (Not 

Raised Below). 

POINT V 
4 A-0981-21

EVEN IF ANY ONE OF THE COMPLAINED-OF 

ERRORS WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT TO 

WARRANT REVERSAL, THE CUMULATIVE 

EFFECT OF THOSE ERRORS WAS TO DENY 

DEFENDANT DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL. 

 

POINT VI 

THE TRIAL COURT INAPPROPRIATELY 

CONSIDERED DEFENDANT'S SUPPRESSED 

STATEMENT, ERRED IN ITS ANALYSIS OF 

AGGRAVATING FACTOR SIX, AND FAILED TO 

CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF DEFENDANT'S 

ADVANCED AGE AT RELEASE ON THE 

APPROPRIATE SENTENCE. THE SENTENCE 

MUST BE VACATED AND THE MATTER 

REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING. 

We reject the arguments that the trial court erred in admitting testimony 

and instructing the jury regarding eyewitness out-of-court identification of 

defendant. We, however, reverse defendant's convictions because we conclude 

inadmissible hearsay testimony was allowed to prove defendant's lack of a 

firearm permit and the prosecutor's misconduct denied defendant a fair trial. 

Considering a new trial is warranted, we do not address defendant's arguments 

regarding replay of the eyewitness's cross-examination, cumulative error, or 

sentence. 

I. 
5 A-0981-21

To provide context to the issues raised on appeal, we briefly summarize 

the trial testimony and procedural history. 

A. Shooting 

On November 1, 2018, sometime between midnight and 1:00 a.m., Cuttino 

asked his live-in girlfriend, Whitney Allen, to drive him to "18th and 18th," in 

Newark, a place she had been to "[c]ountless" times before. After Allen parked 

on the one-way street in front of a house, Cuttino got out, walked up to the 

house's porch, and knocked on the door. A man she knew only by his nickname 

"Sleep," whom she later identified as defendant, came out. Before that night, 

she had seen Sleep, always at that same house during daylight hours, "more than 

five times" during the approximately one year she dated Cuttino. Her interaction 

with Sleep was limited to "hi and bye" greetings with no conversation. Allen 

testified it was "bright enough" on the street for her to see that night; in her 

statement to law enforcement later that day, she stated it was "not super bright" 

but there were streetlights. 

Allen initially saw Cuttino and Sleep talking and laughing, which then 

turned to "arguing, and . . . fighting," causing them to move off the porch next 

to a car parked in front of her car. Cuttino punched Sleep two times and then 

Sleep "pulled out [a] gun." Allen could not recall or did not see where the gun 
6 A-0981-21

came from. She testified Cuttino "ended up running and Sleep pursued him. . . 

. And he shot him. He killed [Cuttino]," then ran away. Allen also testified 

that Sleep fired the gun "so many" times and it was "continuous." Allen drove 

her car to the middle of the street and got out to attend to Cuttino, who was 

unresponsive. 

B. Identification of Defendant & Lack of a Permit to Carry a Firearm 

Felipe Ramirez and Rashon Greene of the Newark Police Department 

were the first law enforcement officers to arrive at the scene. While Ramirez 

aided Cuttino, Greene spoke to Allen, who was "very distressed," "crying," 

"screaming," and "say[ing] multiple things." Ramirez stated that Allen was 

screaming, "He did it. He did it. I know who it is" and "mentioned somebody" 

named Sleep. 

Sergeant Taray Tucker and Detective Salvatore Cordi of the Essex County 

Prosecutor's Office (ECPO) Homicide Task Force subsequently arrived at the 

scene to assist. Tucker testified that surveillance video in the area gave no closeup of the shooter. He described the lighting at the South 18th Street crime scene 

that night as "pretty fair," illuminated by streetlights and the intersection was 

"well-lit." Tucker also stated that, based on his investigation, defendant was 

arrested and an "inquiry was made" as to whether he had ever received a permit 
7 A-0981-21

to purchase or carry a firearm in New Jersey. "A determination was made" that 

he was "not authorized to carry—or permitted to carry a firearm." 

Later in the morning following the shooting, Allen went to the ECPO and 

showed Cordi a photograph of Cuttino and Sleep together which she found on 

Cuttino's phone. Allen took the photograph to show the detectives "that [it] was 

[Sleep] that did it," meaning Sleep killed Cuttino. 

 Later that same day, Allen formally identified Sleep as defendant in a "sixpack" photo-array organized by ECPO Detective Daniel Villanueva, who was 

not involved in the investigation. Allen identified photo three, defendant's photo 

as "Sleep . . . who killed my boyfriend Daquan Cuttino." Defendant's pretrial 

motion to suppress Allen's out-of-court identification was denied. 

Allen testified at trial she was "sure" of her identification of Sleep from 

the photo array without any doubt. Moreover, she pointed out to the jury that 

Sleep, the person who killed Cuttino, was defendant. 

 FBI Special Agent John Hauger testified as an expert in the field of 

historical cellular telephone data analysis. Asked to track defendant's cell phone 

number through records obtained from a communications data warrant, Hauger 

testified that phone calls from that number between 10:57 p.m. on October 31, 

2018, and 1:17 a.m. November 1, 2018, were placed while the phone was near 
8 A-0981-21

649 South 18th Street in Newark. Phone calls starting at 1:24 a.m. and 1:44 a.m. 

were made while the phone was moving southwest from that area. A final call 

at 1:50 a.m. was made further southwest, somewhere in the area of Stuyvesant 

Avenue and Lyons Avenue. Hauger agreed on cross-examination that the phone 

calls could have been made from anywhere in the square-mile sector noted on 

the maps the police provided, not necessarily at the South 18th Street location, 

where Cuttino was shot. 

II. 

 Initially, we address defendant's arguments that his rights to due process 

and a fair trial were violated by the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress

Allen's out-of-court identifications of him and its erroneous jury charge on 

identification. 

 A. Motion to Suppress Identifications 

Defendant moved for a "limited hearing . . . for counsel to explore whether 

. . . Allen discussed her identification with any private actors prior to selecting 

[defendant's Facebook] photo." He also argued Allen's identification reviewing 

the photo array was erroneous because detectives "failed to ask critical and 

mandatory questions, such that the record made was inadequate." 
9 A-0981-21

The trial court rejected defendant's contention the detectives erred in not 

following the requirements set forth in State v. Henderson1 and Rule 3:11 that 

they ask Allen whether she discussed the Facebook photo identification with 

anyone else. The court ruled there was no error because there was no evidence 

of the suggestion cautioned by Henderson could lead to Allen's mistaken 

identification of defendant. The court pointed to the fact that Allen stated she

was "familiar with" defendant, having met him over the summer and saw him 

"several times." The court stressed it was Allen who presented defendant's 

Facebook photo to the detectives, which "they use[d] . . . as a basis for a photo 

array that otherwise fully comports with Delgado,2 Henderson, everything, but 

for a question about any private actors—you know—influenc[ing] [Allen's] 

identification here." 

In his appeal, defendant contends we should reverse his convictions 

because the trial court erred in allowing testimony concerning Allen's: 

"unrecorded identification of Sleep as the shooter when Allen brought a 

[Facebook] picture to the police station;" and "the recorded identification of 

1

 208 N.J. 208 (2011). 

2

 State v. Delgado, 188 N.J. 48 (2006). 
10 A-0981-21

[defendant] from the array as both Sleep and the shooter." Alternatively, he 

seeks remand for a Wade3/Henderson hearing. In addition, defendant contends 

the trial court erred in "failing to give the requested tailored identification 

instruction" as to defendant's contention that "familiarity does not guarantee 

reliability." 

We review the denial of a Wade/Henderson identification hearing for 

abuse of discretion. State v. Ortiz, 203 N.J. Super. 518, 522 (App. Div. 1985). 

We uphold a trial judge's admission of an out-of-court identification if "the 

findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible 

evidence present in the record." State v. Wright, 444 N.J. Super. 347, 356 (App. 

Div. 2016) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162 (1964)). To obtain a 

Wade hearing, a defendant must "proffer . . . some evidence of impermissible 

suggestiveness" which could lead to an erroneous identification. Henderson, 

208 N.J. at 239, 288 (alteration in original) (citations omitted).4 If a defendant 

presents sufficient evidence of impermissible suggestiveness, the court should 

3

 United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). 

4

 Our Supreme Court subsequently modified Henderson in part, adding where 

"no electronic or contemporaneous, verbatim written recording of the 

identification procedure is prepared" defendants are entitled to a Wade hearing. 

State v. Anthony, 237 N.J. 213, 233 (2019). Anthony does not change our 

analysis because Allen's identification was recorded. 
11 A-0981-21

conduct an evidentiary hearing where the State must offer proof the proffered 

eyewitness identification is reliable based several variables. Id. at 288-89. 

A Wade/Henderson hearing is not required for a "confirmatory" 

identification because such an identification is "not considered suggestive." 

State v. Pressley, 232 N.J. 587, 592 (2018). "A confirmatory identification 

occurs when a witness identifies someone he or she knows from before but 

cannot identify by name." Id. at 592-93. The Court explained the person 

identified "may be a neighbor or someone known only by a street name." Id. at 

593. That is what occurred here. Allen had seen "Sleep" before and identified 

him from the photo on Cuttino's Facebook page. This was a confirmatory 

identification. Therefore, a Wade hearing was not required. Id. at 592. 

Accordingly, denying defendant's request for a Wade hearing was not an abuse 

of discretion. 

Turning to Allen's out-of-court identification of defendant, our court rules

detail the procedures law enforcement must follow for the identification to be 

admitted at trial. Rule 3:11(c)(9) requires a recording of "a witness' statement 

of confidence, in the witness' own words, once an identification has been made." 

Rule 3:11(c)(10) requires the recording of "the identity of any individuals with 

whom the witness has spoken about the identification procedure, at any time 
12 A-0981-21

before, during, or after the official identification procedure, and a detailed 

summary of what was said." We conclude Allen's photo array identification of 

defendant was not tainted by the detectives' failure to adhere to these 

requirements. 

Allen unexpectedly, and voluntarily, presented the Facebook photo to law 

enforcement to show who killed her boyfriend. They did not direct, nor did 

Allen indicate, she would go home to get a photo of the shooter, Sleep. The 

record demonstrates Allen told police she looked through Cuttino's Facebook 

account to find the photo. In the photo were Allen, Cuttino, and Sleep; she drew 

an arrow to Sleep on the picture at the request of the detective. Defendant has 

not cited, nor are we aware of, any authority supporting his claim indicating that 

the recording requirements of Rule 3:11 apply to circumstances such as here, 

where a witness, unprompted, provides police with a photo claiming it shows 

the perpetrator of a crime. 

Law enforcement substantially complied with Rule 3:11(c)(9) and (10). 

After Allen provided the Facebook photo, a detective, who was not involved in 

the investigation or the Facebook identification, recorded Allen's review of the 

photo array and follow-up questioning about both the photo she had selected 

from the array and the Facebook photo. When asked if she were "absolutely 
13 A-0981-21

certain" the person in the photo––defendant known to her as Sleep––was the 

shooter, she said "[y]es." She also stated there was no doubt in her mind that 

Sleep was the shooter, and no one forced or threatened her to identify him. 

B. Identification Jury Charge 

Defendant argues he was deprived of a fair trial by the trial court's refusal 

to include "the role of familiarity and of unconscious transference" in the jury 

instruction on identification. Defendant sought jury charge identification 

language that was not included in the model charge based on Henderson: 

Research has shown that mere familiarity with a 

defendant does not increase the reliability of an 

identification unless there is evidence that the person 

identified is a family member, friend, or longtime 

acquaintance of the witness. 

In assessing this identification[,] you should 

consider the degree of familiarity between the 

defendant and the eyewitness. Lesser degrees of 

familiarity do not enhance accuracy and may, in fact, 

decrease accuracy of the identification. 

Defense counsel advised the court the proposed language was "pieced 

together through research regarding other states' instructions relating to 

identification. And . . . there was an appearance in the Henderson Special 

Master report that related to familiarity." Counsel also cited "several studies 

that show that a marginal level of familiarity with a suspect does not . . . increase 
14 A-0981-21

the reliability of an identification." Counsel noted Allen testified that her 

"encounters" with defendant were "just in passing" and she argued the "minimal 

level of familiarity" was "really important here." Counsel also noted that it was 

"just a warning akin to the confidence level" of the identification and that "the 

research shows it's not actually a predictor of accuracy;" "[m]inimal familiarity 

does not increase the reliability of an identification." The State objected, 

arguing the requested language was not in the model jury charge and it "flies in 

the face of common sense." 

The trial court, relying on Henderson's recognition that "the lynch pin here 

for inclusion within the [identification] charge is general acceptance within the 

scientific community," denied defendant's request. The court reasoned defense 

counsel made an insufficient showing that there's generally accepted scientific 

research to support the recommended language. The court further determined 

Allen's identification of defendant was a "confirmatory identification," "which 

is not considered suggestive" under Pressley. The court thus issued an 

identification instruction that generally tracked the language in the Modern Jury 

Charges (Criminal), "Identification: In-Court and Out-Of-Court Identifications" 

(rev. May 18, 2020). 
15 A-0981-21

"Appropriate and proper jury instructions are essential to a fair trial." 

State v. McKinney, 223 N.J. 475, 495 (2015) (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 

281, 287 (1981)). "[J]ury charges 'must outline the function of the jury, set forth 

the issues, correctly state the applicable law in understandable language, and 

plainly spell out how the jury should apply the legal principles to the facts as it 

may find them.'" Prioleau v. Ky. Fried Chicken, Inc., 223 N.J. 245, 256 (2015) 

(quoting Velazquez v. Portadin, 163 N.J. 677, 688 (2000)). "Erroneous 

instructions are poor candidates for rehabilitation as harmless, and are ordinarily 

presumed to be reversible error." State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 54 (1997) 

(citing State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481, 522 (1994)). 

"Appellate courts apply a harmless error analysis when a defendant has 

objected to a jury charge." State v. Berry, 471 N.J. Super. 76, 105 (App. Div. 

2022) (citing State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 361 (2004)); see also R. 2:10-2. 

"Under that standard, there must be some degree of possibility that [the error] 

led to an unjust result. The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a 

reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might 

not have reached." Id. at 105-06 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Baum, 

224 N.J. 147, 159 (2016) (quoting State v. Lazo, 209 N.J. 9, 26 (2012))). The 

reviewing court must first "determine whether the trial court erred." Jenkins, 
16 A-0981-21

178 N.J. at 361. If error occurred, "defendant's conviction cannot stand if the 

mistake 'was clearly capable of producing an unjust result such that a reasonable 

doubt is raised as to whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might 

not have reached.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Brims, 168 N.J. 297, 306 (2001)). 

"Model jury charges are often helpful to trial judges in performing the 

important function of charging a jury." State v. Cotto, 471 N.J. Super. 489, 543 

(App. Div.) (citing State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373, 379 (1988)), certif. 

denied, 252 N.J. 166 (2022). Thus, "a jury charge is presumed to be proper 

when it tracks the model jury charge because the process to adopt model jury 

charges is 'comprehensive and thorough.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 

308, 325 (2005)). Although our Supreme Court has held that "the better practice 

is to mold the instruction in a manner that explains the law to the jury in the 

context of the material facts of the case[,]" Concepcion, 111 N.J. at 379, failure 

to do so does not support defendant's arguments for the additional instruction 

he sought below. 

With these principles in mind, we conclude substantially for the reasons 

expressed by the trial court that there was no error in rejecting defendant's 

proposed language. Considering the comprehensive identification instruction 

issued largely tracked the model charge, which is based on Henderson, and the 
17 A-0981-21

absence of any testimonial evidence to support defendant's application, no 

injustice resulted in the identification charge provided by the court. See R. 2:10-

2.

III. 

 Defendant argues the trial court violated his rights under the 

Confrontation Clause by allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony to prove 

defendant did not possess a permit to carry a firearm in this state. Sgt. Tucker 

testified, without objection, that based upon an "inquiry made to the New Jersey 

State Police[,]" which maintains the state's firearm permit records, defendant did 

not possess a permit to carry a firearm in New Jersey. 

Defendant contends the lack of admissible evidence regarding defendant 

possession of a firearm permit was compounded by the prosecutor's summation 

remarks: 

Defendant was armed that morning. He had no right to 

be carrying a firearm. He had no permit for it. He had 

no permit to purchase the weapon and he had, more 

importantly, no permit to carry it. But yet he was

armed. He was armed with a semi-automatic handgun. 

And we know he had at least eleven rounds in that 

weapon. How do we know that? Eleven shell casings. 

And they all came from one gun. One gun and one gun 

only.

 
18 A-0981-21

Defendant contends the error requires reversal of all his convictions, not just his 

conviction for second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun. 

 Because defendant failed to object to Tucker's testimony, "we analyze his 

claim . . . through the lens of plain error review," State v. Ross, 229 N.J. 389, 

408 (2017), and we will reverse only if it was "clearly capable of producing an 

unjust result," R. 2:10-2. "The mere possibility of an unjust result is not 

enough." State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79 (2016). To reverse, the error 

"must be sufficient to raise 'a reasonable doubt . . . as to whether the error led 

the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.'" Ibid. (alteration in 

original) (quoting Jenkins, 178 N.J. at 361). 

There is no doubt Tucker's testimony that defendant did not possess a 

permit to carry a firearm was hearsay. His testimony was "offer[ed] in evidence 

to prove the truth of the matter asserted"–– that defendant was guilty of seconddegree unlawful possession of a handgun. See N.J.R.E. 801(c)(2). His 

testimony was not based on his personal knowledge, but on information he had 

obtained from a non-testifying witness who had searched the State Police 

firearms database. In opposition, the State has not presented any argument that 

Tucker's testimony is admissible as a hearsay exception under our Rules of 

Evidence. The State did not introduce any documentary evidence of the firearms 
19 A-0981-21

database search, and none of the hearsay exceptions relating to records apply. 

Cf. N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6) (records of regularly conducted activity, i.e., business 

records); N.J.R.E. 803(c)(8) (public records, reports, and findings); N.J.R.E. 

803(c)(10) (certification of absence of public record or statement); see also 

N.J.R.E. 902(a) (self-authentication of New Jersey public documents); N.J.R.E. 

902(k) (self-authentication of a certification of lack of official record). 

This situation is akin to that in State v. Martini, where the State offered 

testimony like that offered by Tucker to support a conviction for second-degree 

unlawful possession of a handgun. 131 N.J. 176, 319 (1993). An investigating 

officer testified that he had "contacted the New Jersey State Police" to "check 

to see if [the defendant] had a permit to carry a gun in the State of New Jersey[,]" 

and "found that he did not." Ibid. This was "[t]he only evidence the State 

offered" to convict defendant of the handgun offense. Ibid. As our Supreme 

Court held, "[i]n order to prove the absence of an entry in State Police files under 

[former New Jersey] Evidence Rule 63(14) (the business record exception to 

hearsay), a witness with personal knowledge of those files must testify." Id. at 

320. Because no testimony by a witness with personal knowledge had been 

proffered, the Court reversed Martini's conviction of unlawful possession of a 

handgun. Ibid. 
20 A-0981-21

Here, as in Martini, the State proffered no testimony by any witness with 

personal knowledge of the search of the State Police firearms database. Thus,

we reverse defendant's conviction for second-degree unlawful possession of a 

handgun because the only evidence supporting that conviction was the 

inadmissible hearsay testimony by Tucker. 

As for defendant's claim that Tucker's testimony also warrants reversal of 

the remaining offenses, we disagree. The prosecutor's limited reference to the 

lack of a permit did not "substantially prejudice[]" the jury's ability to "evaluate 

the merits" of defendant's defenses to the other offenses, or have the "clear 

capacity to bring about an unjust result." State v. Johnson, 31 N.J. 489, 510 

(1960). Defendant's lack of a firearm permit did not bolster the State's proofs 

that defendant committed murder, nor did the prosecutor make that argument. 

Defendant also raises a Confrontation Clause argument based primarily 

on State v. Carrion, 249 N.J. 253 (2021). In Carrion, decided six weeks after 

defendant was sentenced, the Court held the defendant's Confrontation Clause

rights were violated when the trial court admitted "an affidavit attesting to [the 

defendant's lack of a firearm permit which was] created after a search of the

firearm registry database." Id. at 271-72. The affidavit was "testimonial" and 

as the sole evidence proffered to prove the defendant was unlicensed, "the 
21 A-0981-21

officer knowledgeable about how the search of the database was performed" 

could not be questioned. Id. at 272. 

Because we reverse defendant's conviction for unlawful possession of a 

handgun due to the admission of inadmissible hearsay, we need not address his 

Confrontation Clause argument as well as the question of Carrion's retroactivity. 

See Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez from the Off. of U.S. Senator v. Wells, 

204 N.J. 79, 95 (2010) (stating that courts "strive to avoid reaching 

constitutional questions unless required to do so"); Randolph Town Ctr., L.P. v. 

County of Morris, 186 N.J. 78, 80 (2006) ("Courts should not reach a 

constitutional question unless its resolution is imperative to the disposition of 

litigation."). 

IV. 

 For the first time on appeal, defendant contends the prosecutor's improper 

summation comments require a new trial. Defendant challenges the following 

remarks: 

 I remember reading something quite a few years 

ago and it was—it was actually spoken by a famous 

prosecutor in a major case. . . . 

 And I'd like to impart this to you now. I can't 

improve upon this, so I'm just going to quote it 

verbatim[:] 
22 A-0981-21

 "The suspended judgment with 

which we open this case is no longer 

appropriate. The time has come for final 

judgment. And if the case I present seems 

harsh and uncompromising it is because the 

evidence makes it so. If you were to save 

these men, that they are not guilty, it would 

be as true to say there are no slain, there 

has been no crime." 

Defendant maintains that the "major case" referred to by the prosecutor 

"when he told [the] jury it had a duty to convict" was the Nuremberg trials. He 

contends the misconduct requires reversal as "[t]he State's case rested on the 

issue of the identification" and "[t]he State . . . interfered with that process" 

arguing defendant must be guilty because Cuttino was killed.5 

Arguably, the prosecutor's remarks were not prejudicial because they were 

not objected to by defense counsel. See R.B., 183 N.J. at 333 ("Generally, if no 

objection was made to the improper remarks, the remarks will not be deemed 

prejudicial." (citation omitted)). Had there been an objection, the trial court 

would have been prompted to consider striking the remarks and to provide 

specific curative instructions to address them. See State v. Smith, 212 N.J. 365, 

5

 Defendant and the State filed Rule 2:6-11(d) letters, directing our attention to 

two unpublished decisions that reached different conclusions on this same issue. 

We do not cite them as they have no precedential value. R. 1:36-3. 
23 A-0981-21

403-04 (2012). Because defendant did not object at trial to the prosecutor's 

remarks, we review them for plain error. See R. 2:10-2. 

Prosecutors are entitled to zealously argue the merits of the State's case, 

Smith, 212 N.J. at 403, but they still occupy a special position in our system of 

criminal justice, see State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80, 96 (2004). "[A] prosecutor 

must refrain from improper methods that result in a wrongful conviction, and is 

obligated to use legitimate means to bring about a just conviction." Ibid. 

(quoting State v. Smith, 167 N.J. 158, 177 (2001)). Even if the prosecutor 

exceeds the bounds of proper conduct, "[a] finding of prosecutorial misconduct 

does not end a reviewing court's inquiry because, in order to justify reversal, the 

misconduct must have been 'so egregious that it deprived the defendant of a fair 

trial.'" Smith, 167 N.J. at 181 (quoting State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76, 83 (1999)). 

Said another way, to warrant a new trial, summation remarks must be "so 

prejudicial that 'it clearly and convincingly appears that there was a miscarriage 

of justice under the law.'" Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411, 431 (2006) (quoting 

R. 4:49-1(a)). A reviewing court evaluates challenged remarks not in isolation 

but in the context of summation as a whole. State v. Atwater, 400 N.J. Super. 

319, 335 (App. Div. 2008) (citing State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 105 (1982)). Also, 
24 A-0981-21

the challenged remarks are to be "viewed in the context of the entire record." 

State v. Bey, 129 N.J. 557, 622 (1992). 

 Given the prosecutor did not identify "the famous prosecutor" or "major 

case," we have no sense of knowing whether the jury realized the reference was 

to United States Chief of Counsel Robert Jackson's closing argument during the 

1945 to 1949 trials of Nazi military officials and their supporters for charges of 

crimes against peace and humanity. See Nuremberg Trials, History (June 7, 

2019), https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/nuremberg-trials; Robert 

H. Jackson, Closing Arguments for Conviction of Nazi War Criminals, 20 

Temp. L.Q. 85, 86, 107 (1946). Indeed, we doubt that the jury hearing a case 

some seventy years later made the connection, but the possible connection is 

disconcerting. 

This is a close call. But we conclude the remarks were so out of line and 

unrelated to any evidence or issue in the trial that they infected the jury's 

deliberation, and deprived defendant of a fair trial. We reject the State's 

contention the comment was inconsequential because it was "a quick singular 

moment at the very end of summation" and that the jury's request for a review 

of the elements of the crime before rendering its verdict showed "[t]his quick, 
25 A-0981-21

seconds-long quote was obviously not enough to make the jury forget the 

evidence in pursuit of some vague rhetoric." 

The fact that the prosecutor's remarks were taken from the Nuremberg 

trials is not dispositive. The remarks were not meant to counter defendant's trial 

strategy or summation argument, nor related to trial evidence. See State v. 

Munoz, 340 N.J. Super. 204, 216 (App. Div. 2001) ("A prosecutor is permitted 

to respond to an argument raised by the defense so long as it does not constitute 

a foray beyond the evidence adduced at trial."). We recognize the trial court's

jury charges correctly informed the jury of the State's burden of proof. 

The remarks, however, the minimized the State's proofs against defendant 

to secure his convictions. The prosecutor intruded upon defendant's right to a 

fair trial: informing the jurors to choose between competing burdens of proof, 

intimating defendant must be guilty simply because a killing occurred. Because 

he remarks were prejudicial and denied defendant a fair trial, we are constrained 

to reverse his convictions. 

V.

Because we are remanding for a new trial, it is not necessary to address 

defendant's contentions raised in Points IV – failing to replay Allen's crossexamination, V– cumulative error, and VI – sentence. 
26 A-0981-21

Reverse and remanded for retrial. We do not retain jurisdiction.