SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4599-13T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. 

RAYMOND WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Submitted September 14, 2016 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Carroll.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, 

Indictment No. 12-02-0210.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (James K. Smith, Assistant 

Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the 

brief).

Christopher J. Gramiccioni, Monmouth County 

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Monica do 

Outeiro, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and 

on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 only binding on the 

parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

July 27, 2017
2 A-4599-13T2

Defendant Raymond Wilson was tried before a jury and found 

guilty of first degree armed robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; third 

degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-

1b(2); third degree terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3b; third 

degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A.

2C:39-4d; and fourth degree unlawful possession of a weapon, 

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5d. This was the second time defendant stood trial 

on these charges. The court declared a mistrial the first time 

because the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.

After applying the doctrine of merger, the trial judge 

sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of fifteen years, with 

an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility and five 

years of parole supervision, as required under the No Early Release 

Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The judge also imposed the 

mandatory fines and penalties.

Defendant now argues, for the first time on appeal, that the 

trial court erred when it failed to sua sponte instruct the jury 

on the concept of accomplice liability and allow the jury to 

convict defendant of second degree robbery. Although defendant 

is represented by counsel in this appeal, he submitted a pro se 

supplemental brief in which he argues the trial court erred by not 

suppressing the out-of-court eyewitness identification under the 
3 A-4599-13T2

standards adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Henderson, 208 

N.J. 208 (2011). We reject defendant's arguments and affirm.

We gather the following facts from the record developed before 

the trial court.

In the summer of 2011, Margaret Gillis owned two McDonald's 

fast food restaurants in Neptune Township. Gillis hired Stephanie 

Thompson, a retired teacher, to pick up the sales proceeds 

generated by the restaurants from Monday through Saturday and to 

deposit the money at a local branch of Wells Fargo Bank. The 

restaurants were open seven days a week, but the bank closed on 

Sundays, so Thompson's Monday pick-ups contained the sales 

proceeds from Saturday and Sunday. When this incident occurred, 

Thompson had worked for Gillis for the past eleven years.

At approximately 7:45 a.m. on Monday, August 1, 2011, Thompson 

drove to the two restaurants and picked up the weekend sales 

proceeds. She placed the bag containing the deposits on the front 

passenger's side floor of the car and headed to the Wells Fargo 

Bank branch located at the intersection of Route 33 and Fortunato 

Place in Neptune. She parked the car in a no parking zone located 

"right in front of the night deposit box." Although the bank 

opened at 9:00 a.m., Thompson testified she customarily delivered

the bag with the cash to the tellers one hour before because the 

deposits often comprised thousands of dollars.
4 A-4599-13T2

Following her ordinary routine, Thompson reached down and

grabbed the deposit bag located at the passenger side floor of her 

car. As she did this, an unknown man "snatche[d] open" the 

driver's side door and said: "[T]his is a robbery." Thompson

initially thought this was mere "horseplay." As she explained:

Being that you see the same people almost 

every day and, you know, like I'm from the 

town, you know a lot of people, I'm thinking 

this is horseplay because everybody knows, you 

know, you see the same people. I'm thinking 

somebody is going to say "don't do two things 

at one time," or "keep the door locked." You 

know, last thing in my head is robbery.

Thompson's instinctive reaction to see innocuous “horseplay” 

in the face of danger was supported by the physical characteristics 

of her assailant. As Thompson explained: 

I'm thinking this real quick because I['ve] 

been at the high school 37 years, so you know 

a lot of people know you. There's a lot of 

horse play, but, you know, I'm saying to 

myself, this old geezer. I'm thinking this 

is one of the men that you see every day. Some 

men sit in McDonald's, read the paper. Some, 

you know, seniors come in for the senior 

coffee. I knew right away. I just knew that, 

hey, why would somebody want to rob me. That 

wouldn't make sense to me.

Thompson finally realized that she faced a dangerous 

situation when the assailant repeatedly yelled: "I'm going to kill 

you." The man then used a small knife to cut Thompson's face and

"blood was everywhere." Despite her injuries, Thompson remained 

defiant, "banging," "hitting," and "cussing" her attacker. In her 
5 A-4599-13T2

own words: "I put up a fight." Thompson also maintained direct 

eye contact with defendant during the five or six minutes he was 

in her car. As the altercation wound down, Thompson noticed the 

assailant looked familiar. A few days later, she realized she 

knew him because he frequented the McDonald's. Defendant 

eventually grabbed the bag with the deposits, left the car, and 

fled to an adjoining parking lot. Gills, the restaurant owner, 

testified the bag contained $17,170.33.

While the robbery was happening, Trevor White had driven to 

the bank's parking lot to withdraw money from an ATM. He noticed 

Thompson's car door was open, a woman was sitting in the vehicle's 

driver seat, and a man was "leaning on the seat on his right knee, 

[with his] left foot out the door." Because he did not hear any 

cries for assistance or anything else that seemed suspicious or 

untoward, he did not "pay that much mind" to it. However, as he 

returned to his car, White heard someone say "help" twice. When 

White looked at Thompson's car, he saw the man was partially inside 

the car and had a "knife or a fork" in his hand. White sounded 

his car horn to alert the man of his presence and called 9-1-1.

White next stepped out of his car and yelled at the man: 

"[W]hat you doing, get out of here." White lost sight of the 

assailant when he ran behind bushes at a nearby parking lot.

Although White did not see the assailant's face, he saw him get 
6 A-4599-13T2

away in a green Pontiac Bonneville that "was going down Fortunato." 

White described the Pontiac to the 9-1-1 operator as a 1993 or 

1994 model with a spoiler.

At approximately 7:52 a.m., Neptune Police Officer Michael 

Allen responded to a report of a "robbery in progress." Allen 

knew Thompson based on her work making these deposit runs for 

McDonald's. He observed Thomson had suffered a laceration to her 

face and was bleeding. Both Thompson and White provided Allen 

with a description of the assailant. Thompson in particular 

described her attacker as a heavyset "[b]lack male, approximately 

45 to 55 years old," "wearing a light blue polo . . . style shirt,"

"pants [of unknown color]," and "a baseball cap." White gave a 

similar description, but added the man wore "gray khaki pants."

Neptune Police Officer Erick Amadruto heard the radio call 

of the robbery, which included a description of the assailant, the 

vehicle used to flee the scene, and its direction of travel.

Amadruto found a Pontiac Bonneville with New York license plates 

on Winding Ridge Drive, parked in a parking lot of a condominium 

located approximately a quarter mile from the scene of the robbery. 

Amadruto saw a bloody white towel on the car's center console gear 

shaft and blood on an armrest. The vehicle was towed to the 

Neptune Police Department. The car was registered to Jerome 

Coverdale of Yonkers, New York. Coverdale told law enforcement 
7 A-4599-13T2

investigators that his friend Raymond Wilson used the car 

exclusively. Inside the car, law enforcement investigators found 

a towel stained with blood, a baseball cap, a sneaker stained with 

blood, a grill fork, and documents. The New Jersey State Police 

Laboratory forensically investigated and analyzed the DNA

retrieved from the items the police recovered inside the car and 

found they matched defendant's DNA. Investigators also found 

defendant's wallet and social security card in the car.

On August 2, 2011, Monmouth County Prosecutor's office 

Detective Jose Cruz, acting as an independent agent, administered 

an eyewitness identification procedure in which Thompson selected

defendant's photograph from an array of six photographs. Thompson 

also provided investigators with a detailed statement describing 

the assailant. White similarly selected defendant's photograph 

as the man he saw in Thompson's car.

Law enforcement investigators learned that a man named 

Shequan Williams, whose wife worked at McDonald's, originally 

conceived of the plan to rob Thompson. Williams, however, did not 

participate in the robbery. When he later learned that Thompson 

had been injured in the scuffle over the deposit money, he 

voluntarily contacted a detective he knew from the Asbury Police 

Department and gave a full statement on September 9, 2011. 
8 A-4599-13T2

Williams also testified at trial as a witness for the State. He 

provided the following explanation for his decision.

[W]hen I find out that this lady got cut in 

her face, man, that's what got me upset. Like 

I would have left it alone. I would have left 

it alone, that was my wife's teacher. That 

was my wife's teacher. She's a real close 

family friend and it was just wrong, like, 

come on, she's an old lady. You got to cut 

an old lady? A [sic] old lady?

PROSECUTOR: Let me stop you for a second.

Mr. Williams, you're talking about how it's 

wrong, correct?

A. Yes.

PROSECUTOR: But you said that you planned to 

rob her yourself, correct?

A. Yes.

PROSECUTOR: Why is what you were going to do 

any different than what happened?

A. I wouldn't hurt her, at all.

PROSECUTOR: How would you have done it?

A. I would have snatched the bag and ran. 

That's what I would have done.

Williams stated he originally approached his friend Marcus 

Evans with the idea of robbing Thompson. Williams and Evans met 

defendant in August 2011. The three men went to McDonald's to see 

how Thompson picked up the deposit bag. They next followed 

Thompson to the bank. On August 1, 2011, Evans told Williams that 

he was "going to take this job" from him because he was taking 
9 A-4599-13T2

"too long about it." Williams interpreted Evan's message as a 

threat to take away money that Williams depended on to finance a

vacation with his wife. He responded by immediately going to his 

house to retrieve supplies he needed to rob Thompson without being 

identified. These items included "a gray hoodie and stocking 

cap."

When Williams drove into the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot,

he received another call from Evans warning him not to go forward 

with the robbery. As Williams approached the Bank's parking lot, 

he noticed defendant looking inside the trunk of a green car. This 

prompted Williams to abandon his plan to rob Thompson. As Williams 

explained to the jury: "I'm going to leave because I'm not going 

to jail for some stupid shit that they do." Williams identified 

defendant as the assailant, both in court and through a photo 

array presented during the investigation. 

After Williams gave his statement related to this crime on 

September 9, 2011, he was arrested on an open parole violation 

warrant issued by New York State and housed in the Monmouth County 

Correctional Institution (MCCI). While awaiting disposition of 

this parole violation, Williams encountered defendant while they

were both in the MCCI Intake Housing area. Williams also 

interacted with defendant when defendant was housed in the "G2"

section of the MCCI, which Williams claimed was "right next door 
10 A-4599-13T2

to me." Williams provided the following description of this 

custodial setting:

So there's a big glass that separates us. We 

see each other every day. I actually didn't 

know that he was there at first until . . . I 

saw my brother-in-law and when I saw my 

brother-in-law, I happened to see Mr. Wilson 

sitting by the table watching T.V. also; and 

I asked my brother-in-law to call him. I 

wanted to make sure that that was the person 

that I saw or that person that I met.

When I saw him, I asked him to come outside. 

It's all glass, all around, and it was their 

time for yard. We had the gym, but we can 

talk through the glass or we can talk through 

the doors and we had a conversation.

In that conversation, he admitted to me that 

he did it. He told me that he didn't cut her, 

that all he did was put the fork to her face. 

I said a fork? He said yeah, a fork. You 

know, one of those big BBQ fork[s]? That's 

all I had. He put the fork to her face and 

the only reason she got cut is because how she 

was fighting. He said, man, that bitch was 

strong. She was trying to bite my fingers and 

everything, just going off.

Defendant presented an alibi defense. He denied having any 

involvement with this crime because he was home in Yonkers, New 

York on the morning of August 1, 2011. In support of this defense, 

defendant called his wife Lisa Stewart as his alibi witness. As 

of the time of trial, Stewart testified she had been married to 

defendant for twenty-nine years. She and defendant had never been 

to Neptune before defendant was arrested on August 10, 2011 in 
11 A-4599-13T2

connection with this crime.1 According to Stewart, at 7:00 a.m. 

on Monday, August 1, 2011, the day and time the robbery occurred, 

defendant was at home with her in Yonkers.

Stewart testified she worked for the WestMed Medical Group

as a "clerical associate's office manager" when the robbery

occurred. When she woke up at 7:00 a.m. that Monday to go to 

work, defendant was "[i]n the bed with a hangover." When asked 

why he was "hungover," Stewart responded: "Because he went out 

th[e] night before." When defense counsel asked her to elaborate 

on defendant's condition that morning, Stewart stated: "Hung

over[,] [d]runk, drunk, drunk, drunk, like when he came in, and 

then that morning he was just laying in the bed sick, you know. 

If you drink too much[,] you get a hangover and he was just sick."

Defendant was sixty-five years old when he testified in his 

own defense on December 10, 2013. He corroborated his wife's 

testimony about being hungover when the robbery occurred. He 

testified he was "socializing" at the "marina" the night before

and overextended himself. He did not remember which one of his 

"associates" drove him home. Although he realized his car was 

missing, defendant claimed he did not learn that Williams and 

Evans had taken it until later. 

 

1 Stewart testified that defendant was initially held in a jail 

located in Westchester, New York for a period of two to three 

weeks before he was transported to the MCCI.
12 A-4599-13T2

Defendant testified he knew Evans "[f]rom the neighborhood." 

He did not know Williams at all until he met him at a party in 

Yonkers. He claimed Williams set him up as the "fall guy" in this 

robbery. He saw both Williams and Evans at the MCCI and claimed 

they threatened him "[i]n a roundabout way." When asked by his 

attorney to elaborate, defendant merely stated: "Just keep your 

mouth shut." Although defendant denied any involvement in the 

robbery, he conceded the towel that the police found inside his 

car contained his blood. He claimed the blood was on the towel 

from a self-inflicted injury to his finger that occurred about one 

month before the robbery.

Against this record, defendant now appeals raising the 

following arguments.

POINT I

GIVEN THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY THAT MARCUS 

EVANS AND SHEQUAN WILLIAMS WERE "INVOLVED IN"

THE ROBBERY WITH DEFENDANT, THE TRIAL COURT 

ERRED IN FAILING TO CHARGE THE JURY ON 

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY, AND IN FAILING TO GIVE 

THE JURY THE OPTION OF CONVICTING DEFENDANT 

OF SECOND-DEGREE ROBBERY. (Not Raised Below)

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT 

THE JURY THAT IT SHOULD RECEIVE AND WEIGH 

SHEQUAN WILLIAM'S TESTIMONY ABOUT DEFENDANT'S 

SUPPOSED CONFESSION WITH CAUTION, AND ONLY 

CONSIDER IT IF THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. 

(Not Raised Below)
13 A-4599-13T2

In his pro se supplemental brief, appellant raises the 

following argument.

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE SUPPRESSED THE 

RESULTS OF THE EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AS 

IMPERMISSIBLY SUGGESTIVE AND UNRELIABLE.

We begin our analysis by emphasizing that all of the arguments 

defendant now makes in this appeal were not raised before the 

trial court. Thus, these arguments will be reviewed under the 

plain error standard, which requires this court to disregard any 

error or omission "unless it is of such a nature as to have been 

clearly capable of producing an unjust result[.]" R. 2:10-2. We 

must also review the jury charge as a whole. State v. Baum, 224 

N.J. 147, 159-60 (2016). Guided by this standard of review, we 

are satisfied the trial court properly instructed the jury on all 

of the relevant legal issues.

Williams's testimony describing his role in this crime did 

not warrant that the court sua sponte instruct the jury on the 

legal elements of accomplice liability as defined in N.J.S.A.

2C:2-6. Defendant's defense strategy was based on the alibi 

testimony presented by his wife. Thus, defense counsel did not 

ask the court to instruct the jury on accomplice liability during 

the charge conference held pursuant to Rule 1:8-7(b).
14 A-4599-13T2

Defendant's remaining arguments raised by his appellate 

counsel lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). In the interest of clarity, we indicate

there was no rational basis for the trial judge to sua sponte 

instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of second degree 

robbery. See State v. Carrero, ____ N.J. ____, ____ (2017) (slip 

op. at 19); N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8(e). The trial court also correctly 

instructed the jury on how to consider and evaluate Williams's 

testimony concerning defendant's alleged inculpatory statements. 

State v. Cook, 179 N.J. 533, 552 (2004).

Finally, defendant's pro se argument is wholly without merit. 

Applying the then-prevailing analytical standards, the trial court

found the law enforcement investigators properly followed the 

identification procedures acceptable at the time. The standards 

that the Supreme Court established in State v. Henderson, 208 N.J.

208, 302 (2011), do not apply to this case.

Affirmed.