SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4254-17T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TERELL L. HUBBARD,

a/k/a RELL,

Defendant-Respondent.

__________________________

Submitted November 16, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Messano, Hoffman, and Suter.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Cumberland County, Indictment No. 16-01-

0061.

Helmer, Conley & Kasselman, P.A., attorneys for 

appellant (Jack J. Lipari, of counsel and on the brief).

Jennifer Webb-McRae, Cumberland County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Stephen C. Sayer, 

Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

January 8, 2021
2 A-4254-17T3

Defendant Terell L. Hubbard was tried on the third indictment returned 

by a Cumberland County grand jury; the first two indictments were dismissed 

by the State and superseded by subsequent grand jury presentations. The jury 

convicted defendant of the lesser-included offenses of second-degree 

manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1), and simple assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-

1(a)(1), in the death of his five-month-old daughter, L.H., and acquitted 

defendant of endangering L.H.'s welfare.1 The judge sentenced defendant to a 

seven-year term of imprisonment, subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), 

N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.

Defendant raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I 

THE LOWER COURT ERRANTLY ADMITTED 

DEFENDANT'S CUSTODIAL STATEMENTS INTO 

EVIDENCE, IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND 

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION, IN VIOLATION OF THE 

PRINCIPLES OF THE "MIRANDA" CASE AND ITS 

PROGENY, IN VIOLATION OF NEW JERSEY 

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW; 

THESE STATEMENTS WERE INVOLUNTARY 

AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM 

THE TRIAL; THE ERRANT ADMISSION OF THESE 

STATEMENTS REQUIRES REVERSAL.2

1 We use initials of the child victim pursuant to Rule 1:38-3.

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We have omitted the subpoints of 

this argument.
3 A-4254-17T3

POINT II 

THE STATE ELICITED TESTIMONY IN 

VIOLATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER 

SUPPRESSING DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF 

OCTOBER 20, 2008, VIOLATING THE 

DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 

AGAIN AND PREJUDICING HIS RIGHT TO FAIR 

TRIAL. (NOT RAISED BELOW) 

POINT III

THE CONVICTION MUST BE VACATED AND THE 

INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF 

PROSECUTORIAL VINDICTIVENESS AND IN 

VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT'S STATE AND 

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS 

UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH 

AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITU[T]ION AND ARTICLE I, 

PARAGRAPHS ONE AND EIGHT OF THE NEW 

JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION, AS WELL AS IN 

THE EXERCISE OF THE COURT'S SUPERVISORY 

AUTHORITY. (NOT RAISED BELOW) 

POINT IV

THE CONVICTION MUST BE VACATED AND THE 

INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON ACCOUNT OF 

MISCONDUCT AND IRREGULARITY IN THE 

GRAND JURY PRESENTATION, AND VIOLATION 

OF THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO INDICTMENT 

BY GRAND JURY UNDER CONSTITUTION AND 

ARTICLE I, PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE NEW JERSEY 

CONSTITUTION. (NOT RAISED BELOW) 
4 A-4254-17T3

POINT V

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN ITS RULING IN 

LIMINE, INASMUCH AS IT INDICATED THAT IT 

WOULD ALLOW BAD ACT EVIDENCE IF THE 

DEFENDANT WERE TO TESTIFY THAT HIS 

ACTIONS WERE ACCIDENTAL, AND THUS, IN 

EFFECT, DENIED THE DEFENDANT THE RIGHT 

TO PRESENT SUCH ACCIDENT AS A DEFENSE. 

POINT VI

DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL 

BECAUSE THE JURY VERDICTS WERE 

INCONSISTENT, THE VERDICT WAS NOT SO 

SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE 

AS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INCONSISTENCY,

AND THE REASON FOR THE INCONSISTENCY IS 

FAIRLY ASCERTAINABLE; AND ALSO BECAUSE 

THE VERDICT, IN ANY EVENT, WAS AGAINST 

THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

POINT VII

THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO 

OFFER SIMPLE ASSAULT SPECIFICALLY AS A 

LESSER[-]INCLUDED OFFENSE WITHIN 

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER AND 

MANSLAUGHTER AND THE VERDICT SHEET 

WAS MISLEADING. (NOT RAISED BELOW) 

POINT VIII

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING 

POLICE TESTIMONY THAT EVALUATED 

CREDIBILITY AND IMPLIED GUILT. 
5 A-4254-17T3

POINT IX

THERE WAS PREJUDICIAL AND REVERSIBLE 

ERROR IN TESTIMONY CONCERNING A 

CLAVICLE FRACTURE. (NOT RAISED BELOW)

POINT X

CUMULATIVE ERROR RENDERED THE TRIAL 

UNFAIR REQUIRING REVERSAL. (NOT RAISED 

BELOW) 

POINT XI

DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE 

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE SIXTH 

AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, PARAGRAPH 10 

OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE CONSTITUTION. 

(NOT RAISED BELOW) 

We have considered these arguments based on the record and applicable legal 

standards. We affirm.

I.

Proper consideration of the arguments raised in Points III and IV require 

us to detail the complicated procedural history leading up to trial and provide 

some general context for the charges.

On October 20, 2008, defendant was home alone with L.H. when he called 

9-1-1 to report she had stopped breathing. Medical personnel later revived her, 

but she ultimately passed away after being removed from life support. Police 
6 A-4254-17T3

first interrogated defendant on the day of the incident (the October 2008 

statement); they interviewed him again on May 7, 2009 (the May 2009 

statement). The second interview took place after the autopsy report indicated 

L.H. died from acute cervical trauma and aggravation of a congenital

intracerebral vascular malformation. Defendant admitted throwing the child on 

the bed to stop her crying; L.H. then went silent, at which point defendant called 

9-1-1. 

Defendant was initially charged in a complaint/warrant with aggravated 

manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1). A grand jury indicted defendant in 

December 2010, charging him with manslaughter and endangering. Defendant 

challenged the admissibility of his two statements to law enforcement, and the 

judge conducted a bifurcated evidentiary hearing. He suppressed the October 

2008 statement, and the State sought leave to appeal. We denied that motion, 

pending the judge's decision on the admissibility of the May 2009 statement. In 

the interim, the State sought and obtained a superseding indictment that 

additionally charged defendant with second-degree aggravated assault of L.H., 

N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1), i.e., purposefully, knowingly or recklessly under 

circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, caused serious 

bodily injury to L.H.
7 A-4254-17T3

The judge held an evidentiary hearing on the May 2009 statement and 

denied defendant's motion to suppress. We granted the State's motion for leave 

to appeal the order suppressing the October 2008 statement; defendant did not 

move to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the May 2009 statement. 

We reversed the order suppressing the October 2008 statement. State v. 

Hubbard, A-2221-12 (App. Div. Oct. 11, 2013). In June 2015, the Supreme 

Court reversed our judgment, reinstating the Law Division's order suppressing 

the October 2008 statement. State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 272 (2015). The 

Court held the custodial interrogation leading to the October 2008 statement was 

"conducted without administration of defendant's Miranda rights[.]" Ibid. 

At the first status conference following the Court's remand, defendant 

rejected the State's plea bargain offer, i.e., plead guilty to manslaughter with a 

recommended five-year sentence subject to NERA. The next day, the prosecutor 

wrote to defense counsel. He revoked the plea offer, declined extending another, 

and indicated the State would present the matter to a third grand jury to address 

the "inconsistent charges" in the existing indictment. The prosecutor's letter 

implied this inconsistency was apparent from the culpable mental states required 

to prove the crimes charged in the indictment: reckless manslaughter, knowing 

or purposeful aggravated assault, and knowingly endangering the welfare of a 

child. 
8 A-4254-17T3

In January 2016, a grand jury returned the superseding indictment on 

which defendant was tried. The only difference from the second indictment was 

the elevation of the first count from second-degree manslaughter to first-degree 

aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1). The aggravated assault and 

endangering counts remained the same. In June, the State tendered another plea 

offer; in return for defendant's guilty plea to aggravated manslaughter, the 

prosecutor would recommend a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment, 

subject to NERA. Defendant rejected the offer and proceeded to trial.

Defendant argues the third grand jury presentation demonstrates 

prosecutorial vindictiveness and punishment for defendant's successful defense 

on interlocutory appeal. He also contends that the third presentation was flawed

by prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant urges us to reverse his conviction and 

dismiss the indictment.

With limited exceptions that do not apply here, "objections based on 

defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the indictment . . . must be 

raised by motion before trial." R. 3:10-2(c). "[O]bjections alleging procedural 

irregularities in the grand jury proceeding[s]" are included in the rule's purview. 

Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 3.3 on R. 3:10-2 (2021). 

Among other things, "[t]his rule governing the timing of the motion recognizes 

the right of the State to cure any irregularity." State v. Simon, 421 N.J. Super. 
9 A-4254-17T3

547, 551 (App. Div. 2011) (citing State v. Womack, 145 N.J. 576, 590 (1996); 

State v. Hart, 139 N.J. Super. 565, 569 (App. Div. 1976)).

Defendant concedes no motion to dismiss the indictment was made in the 

Law Division. As a result, we could refuse to consider these arguments raised 

for the first time on appeal. State v. Branch, 301 N.J. Super. 307, 319 (App. 

Div. 1997), rev'd in part on other grounds. 155 N.J. 317 (1998); State v. R.W., 

200 N.J. Super. 560, 572 (App. Div. 1985), mod. on other grounds., 104 N.J. 14 

(1986); State v. Spano, 128 N.J. Super. 90, 92 (App. Div. 1973). Nevertheless, 

for the sake of completeness, and because the State does not assert defendant's 

failure to comply with Rule 3:10-2 bars our review, we briefly address the merits

of defendant's arguments.

"One of the guiding principles to be followed by a court when considering 

a motion to dismiss an indictment is that 'a dismissal of an indictment is a 

draconian remedy and should not be exercised except on the clearest and plainest 

ground.'" State v. Zembreski, 445 N.J. Super. 412, 424–25 (App. Div. 2016) 

(quoting State v. Williams, 441 N.J. Super. 266, 271 (App. Div. 2015)). "As 

there is no prohibition against a prosecutor seeking a superseding indictment 

before trial, an indictment is not 'deficient' or 'defective' because it is amended 
10 A-4254-17T3

to include a new charge." Id. at 425 (citing State v. Bauman, 298 N.J. Super. 

176, 205 (App. Div. 1997)).

3

 

"[A]bsent a showing of 'vindictiveness' — meaning 'the prosecutor's 

action was solely [in] retaliation . . . for [defendant's] exercise of a legal right'

— a superseding indictment will not be disturbed." Ibid. (second and third 

alterations in original) (quoting State v. Gomez, 341 N.J. Super. 560, 575 (App. 

Div. 2001)); see also Shaw, 241 N.J. at 240 ("Prosecutorial vindictiveness in the 

indictment process may also run afoul of due process and warrant court 

intervention." (citing Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28 (1974); Gomez, 341 

N.J. Super. at 571–72)). In Gomez, we held that

although there is an opportunity for prosecutorial 

vindictiveness in the pretrial stage, it is insufficient to 

justify a presumption of vindictiveness for the pretrial 

action of adding or substituting charges. The 

overwhelming weight of authority . . . restrict[s]

application of the presumption to posttrial prosecutorial 

actions.

[341 N.J. Super. at 574 (citing Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 

27).] 

Here, the third indictment preceded trial, and no presumption of 

vindictiveness applies to the elevation of count one to aggravated manslaughter. 

3

In State v. Shaw, 241 N.J. 223, 243 (2020), the Court exercised its supervisory 

power and held that in the absence of additional evidence, a prosecutor may not 

seek an indictment after two grand jury no bills without advance approval from 

the vicinage Assignment Judge. 
11 A-4254-17T3

We acknowledge defendant's argument that the prosecutor's stated purpose in 

re-presenting the case — to rectify "inconsistent charges" in the existing 

indictment — lacks credence. Aggravated manslaughter, like manslaughter, 

requires proof of reckless conduct. Additionally, one may recklessly commit an 

aggravated assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1); the conduct need not be 

purposeful or knowing. 

However, we have been provided with the grand jury transcripts from all 

three grand jury presentations. In 2016, the prosecutor submitted the charge of 

knowing, purposeful murder for the grand jurors' consideration. In other words, 

the State's presentation sought an indictment on a charge that required a 

purposeful or knowing mental state; that the grand jury chose not to return an 

indictment for murder does not demonstrate the prosecutor's stated purpose was 

a ruse or his motive vindictive. 

Perhaps more importantly, the evidence presented to secure the 2010 

indictment was limited to less than fourteen pages of testimony from Sergeant

Alexis Sheftall, the investigating officer from the Cumberland County 

Prosecutor's Office, and sparked a single question from the panel. The sergeant's 

testimony was even shorter in 2012, and provoked no questions from the panel. 

In 2016, the officer's testimony was more extensive, nearly twice as many pages 

in the transcript, and referenced the findings of a third medical consultant, a 
12 A-4254-17T3

"child patholog[ist]," never mentioned in the earlier grand jury presentations. 

Members of the grand jury repeatedly asked questions after Sergeant Sheftall

testified. In short, no presumption of vindictiveness applies to the third grand 

jury presentation, and defendant failed to demonstrate that it was "solely [in] 

retaliation" for defendant's successful appeal to the Court. Gomez, 341 N.J. 

Super. at 575.

We also reject the arguments defendant makes in Point IV. Essentially, 

he contends the prosecutor presented evidence to the grand jury about preexisting, healing injuries found on L.H. at autopsy without advising the panel 

that defendant was not charged with having caused those injuries or the 

congenital vascular malformation. He objects to the sergeant characterizing the

opinion of a medical expert that the force necessary to produce the spinal injuries 

to L.H. was equal to a fall from several stories. Lastly, he argues the prosecutor's 

instructions to the grand jury were misleading and inadequate. Combined, 

defendant contends the presentation was a "subversion of the grand jury 

process." We disagree.

Rule 3:10-2's requirement that a motion to dismiss an indictment be made 

before trial also "allows preservation of the issue because a guilty verdict is 

universally considered to render error in the grand jury process harmless." 

Simon, 421 N.J. Super. at 551–52 (citing State v. Lee, 211 N.J. Super 590, 599 
13 A-4254-17T3

(App. Div. 1986)). This general principle makes defendant's claims of alleged 

errors in the third presentation harmless errors if errors at all. As we said in 

State v. Warmburn, "a subsequent finding of guilty by a properly instructed jury 

'represents a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant[] w[as] guilty of 

the offense. Thus, even if the grand jury instructions were erroneous, the error 

was rendered harmless by the subsequent guilty verdict.'" 277 N.J. Super 51, 60 

(App. Div. 1994) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Ball, 268 N.J. Super. 

72, 120 (App. Div. 1993)); see also State v. Cook, 330 N.J. Super. 395, 411 

(App. Div. 2000) (applying same principle to failure to provide grand jury with 

alleged exculpatory evidence). 

Here, defendant's assertions of misconduct in the presentation of evidence 

or legal instructions to the third grand jury panel are harmless errors in light of 

the jury's verdict after trial and compel neither reversal nor dismissal of the 

indictment.

II.

In Point I, defendant contends the motion judge erred by ruling the May 

2009 statement was admissible at trial. He argues in Point II that the State 

elicited testimony during trial about the October 2008 statement, which the 

Court suppressed. 
14 A-4254-17T3

As already noted, the officers did not administer Miranda warnings to 

defendant in October 2008; they did administer warnings to him prior to the 

interrogation that produced the May 2009 statement. At the evidentiary hearing

on that statement, the motion judge considered the testimony of Sergeant 

Sheftall and Detective Travaline, who interrogated defendant, and saw the video 

recording of the May 2009 interrogation. 

Following the hearing, the judge rendered a comprehensive oral decision. 

He specifically considered the evidence in light of State v. O'Neill, 193 N.J. 148 

(2007). There, the Court considered the effect of pre-warning custodial 

interrogation on a defendant's subsequent post-warning waiver of rights and the 

statement made thereafter, the so-called "two-step, 'question-first, warn-later' 

interrogation . . . technique[.]" Id. at 180. The Court held: 

[W]hen Miranda warnings are given after a custodial 

interrogation has already produced incriminating 

statements, the admissibility of post-warning 

statements will turn on whether the warnings 

functioned effectively in providing the defendant the 

ability to exercise his state law privilege against selfincrimination . . . . [C]ourts should consider all relevant 

factors, including: (1) the extent of questioning and the 

nature of any admissions made by defendant before 

being informed of his Miranda rights; (2) the proximity 

in time and place between the pre- and post-warning 

questioning; (3) whether the same law enforcement 

officers conducted both the unwarned and warned 

interrogations; (4) whether the officers informed 

defendant that his pre-warning statements could not be 

used against him; and (5) the degree to which the post-
15 A-4254-17T3

warning questioning is a continuation of the prewarning questioning. The factual circumstances in 

each case will determine the appropriate weight to be 

accorded to any factor or group of factors.

. . . .

We emphasize that we are not pronouncing a 

bright-line rule. For example, if the officers' prewarning questioning is brief and the defendant's 

admissions are not incriminating or are barely 

incriminating[,] and if there is a substantial break in 

time and circumstances between the pre- and postwarning interrogations, then those factors would 

militate against suppression of the defendant's 

statements.

[Id. at 180–81 (second emphasis added).]

The motion judge found both officers credible. He noted the May 2009 

interrogation took place 199 days after the unwarned October 2008 

interrogation. The officers only questioned defendant again "after . . . receiving 

scientific evidence that caused them to be suspicious." The judge determined

there was no "single, un-warned sequence of questioning." The judge further 

found that defendant's first, now suppressed, statement was not incriminatory

and contained "very little . . . that could be utilized as direct evidence in this 

prosecution." Lastly, the judge rejected any contention that the statement was 

the product of coercion or the overbearing of defendant's free will.
16 A-4254-17T3

Defendant contends the judge misapplied O'Neill, and the officers' use of 

deceptive and aggressive questioning techniques effectively "diluted" the 

Miranda warnings. We disagree.

We "must defer to the factual findings of the trial court when that court 

has made its findings based on the testimonial and documentary evidence 

presented at an evidentiary hearing or trial." Hubbard, 222 N.J. at 269. "An 

appellate court owes no deference, however, to 'conclusions of law made by 

lower courts in suppression decisions,' which are reviewed de novo." State v. 

A.M., 237 N.J. 384, 396 (2019) (quoting State v. Boone, 232 N.J. 417, 426 

(2017)). 

The judge considered the factors enunciated in O'Neill and properly 

applied them to the factual findings he made. Considering the language from 

O'Neill we highlighted above, it is beyond cavil that defendant's first statement 

was "barely incriminating" and there was "a substantial break in time and 

circumstances" between the two statements. 193 N.J. at 181. Although 

Detective Travaline was present during both interviews, the judge found, and 

the video corroborates, that a different officer, Sergeant Sheftall, primarily 

conducted the second interrogation. The contention that the judge misapplied 

O'Neill warrants no further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
17 A-4254-17T3

As to the voluntariness of the statement, the State bears the burden of 

proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's statement was the result of 

a voluntary waiver of his rights and "that the police did not overbear the will of 

the defendant." State v. Hreha, 217 N.J. 368, 383 (2014) (citing State v. 

Galloway, 133 N.J. 631, 654 (1993)). "Determining whether the State has met 

that burden requires a court to assess 'the totality of the circumstances, including 

both the characteristics of the defendant and the nature of the interrogation.'" 

Ibid. (quoting Galloway, 133 N.J. at 654).

Defendant cites State v. Patton, where we held, "[T]he fabrication of 

evidence by police to elicit a confession and admission of that evidence at trial, 

violates due process, and any resulting confession is per se inadmissible." 362 

N.J. Super. 16, 46 (App. Div. 2003). Here, the investigators did not fabricate 

physical evidence and show it to defendant to compel incriminatory statements. 

During the questioning, they displayed the actual autopsy report, not fabricated 

evidence.

Defendant cites to State v. L.H., where the interrogating officers 

constantly promised "'help' and 'counseling'" for the defendant, and that he 

would "stay out of jail" and see his daughter if he told the truth, despite the 

defendant's reluctance to "giv[e] up the right to remain silent[,]" 239 N.J. 22, 

31, 33 (2019). After considering the totality of circumstances surrounding the 
18 A-4254-17T3

interrogation, the Court affirmed our judgment "that the detectives secured an 

involuntary confession." Id. at 52.

The motion judge, who saw the same videorecording that we have viewed, 

concluded the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant's May 

2009 statement was not the product of coercion or otherwise resulted from the 

interrogating officers' deception that overbore defendant's free will. The very 

limited citations defendant makes to the transcript of the May 2009 interrogation 

demonstrate its qualitative difference from the techniques the Court found 

constitutionally deficient in L.H. and cases cited therein.4

In Point II, defendant claims the prosecutor's questioning of Sergeant 

Sheftall before the jury as she introduced the recording of the May 2009 

statement, implicated the existence and contents of defendant's October 2008 

statement, now suppressed. The prosecutor asked Sheftall if at the beginning of 

the May 2009 interview, did defendant "repeat . . . the information that he had 

4 Defendant also argues that the jury saw a very brief portion of the interrogation 

in which the officers permitted a worker from the Division of Youth and Family 

Services (DYFS) into the room. She posed several questions to defendant. 

Defendant contends this "fatally diluted" the Miranda warnings, because the 

DYFS worker said she was only involved in the "civil part" of the investigation. 

The argument was not specifically raised below, nor was there a specific 

objection to this portion of the video being played for the jury. In any event, we 

reject defendant's claim that this transformed an otherwise voluntary statement 

into one requiring suppression. Moreover, defendant's answers to the questions 

posed by the worker were not incriminatory.
19 A-4254-17T3

provided back in October of 2008." After an objection and sidebar, the judge 

ordered the prosecutor to rephrase the question. The prosecutor asked: 

"Detective, at the beginning of the interview in May did the [d]efendant tell you 

that he was home with his daughter on October 20th?" Defendant's argument is

meritless and warrants no further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

III.

Defendant's remaining arguments center on alleged errors made by the 

trial judge in his evidentiary and legal rulings. Immediately before trial, the 

State indicated its intention to introduce evidence that L.H.'s mother took her 

for medical attention one month before her death. The doctor diagnosed L.H. 

with a fractured clavicle; the autopsy revealed L.H. had other healing injuries. 

Defendant objected to introduction of any evidence of these other injuries as 

evidence of uncharged bad acts. See N.J.R.E. 404(b). The judge conducted a 

Cofield5analysis and excluded the evidence "because it's so bad and so 

prejudicial to the defendant[.]" However, the judge ruled that if defendant 

asserted the injuries were because of an "accident[,]" then "he opens the door" 

and "it's going to have to come in[.]" Defendant did not testify or present any 

witnesses at trial. He now contends the judge's in limine ruling denied him the 

right to present a defense. 

5 State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328, 338 (1992).
20 A-4254-17T3

Without doubt, "[e]vidence of prior episodes of child abuse unconnected 

with the direct cause of the child's death [is] admissible as proof of absence of 

accident or mistake." State v. Moorman, 286 N.J. Super. 648, 660 (App. Div. 

1996) (citing State v. Wright, 66 N.J. 466, 468 (1975), rev'g on dissent, 132 N.J. 

Super. 130, 148 (App. Div. 1974) (Allcorn, J.A.D., dissenting)). "[A] trial court 

may, in its discretion, await the conclusion of the defendant's case before 

deciding the admissibility of 404(b) evidence to prove intent, or lack of 

mistake." State v. Cordero, 438 N.J. Super. 472, 486 (App. Div. 2014). While 

"[a] defendant's right to testify in his or her own defense is an essential element 

of due process[,] . . . whether to testify is a 'strategic or tactical decision to be 

made by a defendant with the advi[c]e of . . . counsel.'" Id. at 488 (third

alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting State v. Bogus, 223 N.J. Super. 

409, 423 (App. Div. 1988)). Accordingly, we reject defendant's argument.

Defendant contends Sergeant Sheftall was permitted to express her 

opinion about whether defendant was truthful while giving his May 2009 

statement. He cites several snippets of the testimony. Having reviewed them in 

light of the totality of the sergeant's testimony, the complete video of defendant's

statement, and the State's other evidence, any error was harmless beyond a 

reasonable doubt. See State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136, 157 (2008) (rejecting a 

similar claim and holding that admission of detective's "testimony in respect of 
21 A-4254-17T3

his skepticism concerning defendant's explanation was [not] 'sufficient to raise 

a reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result that it otherwise 

might not have reached.'" (quoting State v. Feal, 194 N.J. 293, 312 (2008))).

During her testimony, one of the State's medical experts mentioned L.H.'s 

fractured clavicle. There was no objection. Defendant claims this fleeting 

reference was plain error requiring reversal. The argument lacks sufficient merit 

to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Defendant contends the jury verdict was inconsistent, the judge erred by 

not sua sponte charging simple assault as a lesser-included offense of

manslaughter and aggravated manslaughter, and the verdict sheet was confusing 

and misleading because it did not include simple assault as an alternative to the 

homicide offenses. None of these arguments merit reversal.

The medical evidence at trial revealed that L.H.'s congenital vascular 

malformation could have eventually been fatal, and the baby's general 

crankiness shortly before the fatal incident may have evidenced the beginning 

of the malformation's hemorrhaging. In other words, defendant argues the issue 

of causation was front and center for the jury to decide, and, the guilty verdict 

on simple assault, i.e., that he only caused bodily injury to L.H., is inconsistent 

with the manslaughter verdict, which required proof beyond a reasonable doubt 

that his conduct caused injuries resulting in L.H.'s death.
22 A-4254-17T3

It is well-settled that "[w]e . . . must resist the temptation to speculate on 

how the jury arrived at a verdict." State v. Goodwin, 224 N.J. 102, 116 (2016) 

(citing State v. Banko, 182 N.J. 44, 53 (2004)). "Rather, 'we determine whether 

the evidence in the record was sufficient to support a conviction on any count 

on which the jury found the defendant guilty.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. 

Muhammad, 182 N.J. 551, 578 (2005)). Here, the evidence clearly supported 

the jury's guilty verdict as to manslaughter and simple assault. 

Defendant never asked the judge to charge simple assault as a lesser 

included offense of aggravated or reckless manslaughter. "No defendant should 

be convicted of a greater crime or acquitted merely because the jury was 

precluded from considering a lesser offense that is clearly indicated in the 

record." State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147, 180 (2003). In the absence of a party's 

request or objection, however, the evidence in the record must clearly indicate

the need to provide the unrequested charge. State v. Alexander, 233 N.J. 132, 

143 (2018).

Generally, a jury should be "instructed properly on the law and on all 

clearly indicated lesser-included offenses, even if at odds with the strategic 

considerations of counsel." Garron, 177 N.J. at 180. A court may depart from 

this requirement when to do otherwise would "cause complete surprise, or [be] 

so inconsistent with the defense as to undermine the fairness of the 
23 A-4254-17T3

proceedings[.]" Id. at 181. In State v. Doss, we found no plain error in failing 

to give a charge on a lesser-included offense where it was inconsistent with the 

defense strategy, and the jury was provided with another lesser-degree offense

for its consideration. 310 N.J. Super. 450, 455–56 (App. Div. 1998). 

Obviously, as noted, the evidence supported the guilty verdict of simple 

assault, for which the judge provided instructions as a lesser-included offense 

of aggravated assault, a separate count in the indictment. Defendant's strategy 

at trial was to argue his conduct, throwing L.H. onto the bed, was not reckless 

at all, and, even if it was, the conduct did not cause L.H.'s death. Defendant 

urged the jury to find his conduct caused no injuries to L.H., and her death was 

caused by the congenital vascular malformation. As far as the homicide count 

was concerned, defendant's strategy sought an outright acquittal. By convicting 

defendant of reckless manslaughter, the jury rejected the lack of causation 

argument. 

To be sure, the presence of the aggravated assault count makes this case 

particularly unique. It provided the jury with the option of acquitting defendant 

of the greater charge, homicide, and finding him guilty of a lesser-included 

offense, i.e., two different degrees of aggravated assault or simple assault. We 

do not see the lack of instructions on these varying degrees of assault as 

presenting this jury with the disfavored "all or nothing choice," the evil which
24 A-4254-17T3

the Court in Garron and other cases sought to avoid. In short, failing to provide 

a charge on aggravated or simple assault within the instructions on aggravated 

manslaughter and manslaughter was not plain error.

It follows that based on our reasoning, there was not cumulative error 

requiring reversal. Lastly, in Point XI, defendant reiterates all these contentions 

as a basis to find trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. We reject the 

argument since counsel's failure to raise losing arguments in the Law Division 

cannot evidence deficient performance. State v. Echols, 199 N.J. 344, 361 

(2009). We do not preclude defendant raising other claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel in a timely PCR petition if he chooses, but if these specific 

claims of ineffective assistance are raised anew, the PCR court should consider 

them procedurally barred pursuant to Rule 3:22-5.

Affirmed.