SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4793-17T3

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RONALD J. SNEARLING,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted December 3, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Gilson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 17-05-

0645.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for 

appellant (Michele Erica Friedman, Assistant Deputy 

Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Monica Lucinda

do Outeiro, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 11, 2019
2

A-4793-17T3

After the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, defendant pleaded 

guilty to third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2), and seconddegree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b), and was sentenced to concurrent five-year 

prison terms. He appeals and argues, in a single point, that the judge's basis for 

finding defendant and co-defendant Williams "were the individuals in the store 

surveillance video was clearly erroneous in light of the record." We find 

insufficient merit in this argument to warrant a detailed discussion in a written 

opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2), and affirm the denial of defendant's suppression motion 

substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Vincent N. Falcetano, Jr., in his 

thorough written opinion. We add only a few brief comments.

The judge's denial of defendant's suppression motion was based not only 

on a surveillance video, or the judge's interpretation of what was captured on 

the video, but on considerable additional evidence, including the testimony of 

five police officers, all of whom provided, in Judge Falcetano's words, "clear, 

candid, and convincing" testimony. The police testimony revealed that 

defendant was first encountered during a disturbance in front of a pizzeria on 

Springwood Avenue in Asbury Park. On arrival, officers directed the crowd, 
3

A-4793-17T3

which included defendant and Williams,

1

to disperse. An officer's motor vehicle 

recording device (MVR) captured images of defendant and Williams getting into 

a black Traverse and driving off.

A few minutes later, a police officer spoke with the teenage victim, who 

said he was "poked," meaning stabbed, as was confirmed by the fact that the 

victim was bleeding from his back. Officers then watched the pizzeria's 

surveillance video, which depicted the victim's encounter inside the pizzeria. 

The officers identified the two culprits – defendant and Williams – as the men 

who had just departed in the Traverse. In his opinion, Judge Falcetano agreed 

that the video reveals that "[defendant] is seen with a silver knife in his hand, 

and . . . Williams is later seen swinging his arm and striking [the victim] in the 

back in the area of his wound." In light of what the pizzeria video revealed, and 

the Traverse's license plate information captured by the MVR, officers sent out 

a "be on the lookout" communication to surrounding jurisdictions for defendant, 

Williams, and their vehicle.

Later, one of the officers involved in the investigation at the Springwood 

Avenue pizzeria was patrolling near another Asbury Park pizzeria when an 

1 One of the officers recognized defendant from earlier encounters but did not 

know his name.
4

A-4793-17T3

officer drew his attention to a nearby Traverse stopped at a traffic light. The 

officer recognized this Traverse as the same vehicle defendant and Williams had 

driven earlier. The officer could also see, through an open window, that 

defendant was in the driver's seat; his partner spotted Williams in the front 

passenger seat. As the officers walked toward their vehicle, which was parked 

near where defendant's Traverse was stopped, the Traverse drove off. The 

officers entered their vehicle, activated overhead lights, and followed. As they 

pursued the Traverse, the officers observed the Traverse run stop signs and red 

lights. The Traverse was moving as fast as eighty-eight miles per hour as it 

passed through many zones limited to twenty-five miles per hour. Out of 

concern for public safety, the officers abandoned their pursuit.

A few minutes later, the Traverse was stopped in neighboring Ocean 

Township. Defendant and Williams were handcuffed and patted down. The pat 

down of defendant uncovered a silver knife. One of the three women in the 

vehicle volunteered that she was in possession of a knife, which was described 

as a folding knife with a three-inch silver blade.

Based on these and other findings, the judge concluded that the officers 

conducted a lawful and constitutional warrantless search. In appealing, 

defendant mainly focuses on the judge's finding that defendant and Williams 
5

A-4793-17T3

were depicted in the pizzeria video whereas, according to defendant, "the men's 

faces on the video are far from clear" and "there was simply no way for the court 

to determine, with any sense of certainty," that defendant and Williams "were 

the men on the surveillance video."

Defendant's argument misses the point. The judge's finding about what 

was revealed by the pizzeria video was not entirely based on what the judge 

found from having viewed the video. The judge's finding was undoubtedly 

influenced and bolstered by the credible testimony provided by the officers as 

to what they saw in the video and their own encounters with defendant and 

Williams shortly before. And the judge's finding was likely enhanced by his 

having defendant in the courtroom; he was, in this way, able to compare the 

faces in the video with the defendant in the courtroom. Put in the context of all 

the credible evidence presented, the judge's findings are entitled to our 

deference.

2

 State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 15 (2009). We have been offered no 

principled reason to second-guess the findings rendered here.

Affirmed.

2 We have viewed the video included in the appellate record. The faces of the 

culprits can be seen. With the additional evidence adduced during the hearing, 

as well as defendant's presence in the courtroom, we see no reason why the judge 

could not have also reached the same conclusion the officers reached: that 

defendant and Williams appear in the video.
6

A-4793-17T3