SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0481-15T1

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v. 

HOWARD L. DUNNS, a/k/a HOWARD 

LAMONT DUNNS, CLARENCE DUNNS,

MICHAEL HOARN, ROBERT JONESY,

LAMONT NEWPORT and ROBERT JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

Submitted September 25, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia. 

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 

13-09-2433. 

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney 

for appellant (Robert C. Pierce, Designated 

Counsel, on the brief).

Damon G. Tyner, Atlantic County Prosecutor, 

attorney for appellant (John J. Lafferty, IV, 

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

June 29, 2018
2 A-0481-15T1

Defendant Howard L. Dunns appeals his conviction and sentence 

for two counts of burglary and one count of kidnapping. Defendant 

entered conditional pleas of guilty to the offenses, reserving his 

right to challenge the court's denial of his motion to sever four 

charges related to a robbery and kidnapping from the remaining 

thirty charges in the indictment concerning eight separate 

residential burglaries. We reverse the court's order denying 

defendant's severance motion, vacate defendant's conviction and 

sentence, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion.

I.

Defendant and his codefendant Fred D. Mosley were charged in 

an indictment with thirty-four offenses arising out of eight 

residential burglaries and a robbery and kidnapping occurring in 

Atlantic County between November 20, 2012, and February 1, 2013. 

The thirty-fifth count of the indictment charged co-defendant 

Nicole Cumens with third-degree conspiracy to commit burglary and 

theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3. 

Thirty counts of the indictment charged defendant and Mosley 

with offenses arising from eight residential burglaries, including 

eight counts of third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, one count 

of fourth-degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3, five counts of thirddegree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3, eight counts of fourth-degree
3 A-0481-15T1

criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3(a)(1), and eight counts of 

third-degree conspiracy to commit burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 

N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2. 

Four counts of the indictment alleged offenses arising out 

of a January 25, 2013 kidnapping and robbery at A.B.'s

1 residence: 

first-degree kidnapping, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b) (count twenty-one);

second-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count twenty-two);

fourth-degree criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3(a)(1) (count 

twenty-three); and second-degree conspiracy to commit kidnapping 

and robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b) and N.J.S.A. 

2C:15-1 (count twenty-four). Defendants were not charged with 

burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a), in connection with the incident at 

A.B.'s residence. 

Defendant moved to sever counts twenty-one through twentyfour from the thirty burglary-related charges. The State opposed 

the motion and moved to join unindicted burglary and theft charges 

that were pending against defendant and Mosley in Gloucester County

with the charges in the indictment or, in the alternative, to 

permit the State to introduce evidence at trial concerning the 

Gloucester County charges under N.J.R.E. 404(b). 

 

1 We use the victim's initials to protect her privacy.
4 A-0481-15T1

The evidence before the motion court consisted of the grand 

jury testimony of New Jersey State Police Detective John Hannigan 

explaining the investigation, and generally describing the 

burglaries and the robbery and kidnapping. Hannigan testified 

that on November 20, 2012, a residential burglary occurred in 

Buena Vista. The perpetrator(s) broke through a rear door of the 

residence and stole jewelry from the unoccupied home. 

On November 21, 2012, another Buena Vista residence was 

burglarized. A neighbor saw a grey Chevrolet Suburban pull into 

the driveway and two men walk up a handicap ramp to the house. 

The perpetrators broke through the rear door of the residence and 

stole jewelry. 

On January 8 and 9, 2013, burglaries involving broken rear 

doors and the theft of valuables occurred at separate Buena Vista 

residences. On January 19, 2013, a burglary occurred when a cinder 

block was thrown through a rear window and valuables were stolen 

from another Buena Vista residence. 

On January 25, 2013, eighty-five-year-old A.B. awoke to noise 

in the family room of her Buena Vista residence. She confronted 

two men, who bound her hands and feet with a telephone cord and 

asked her for money. The perpetrators went through the home, 

stole jewelry and fled the scene, leaving the bound A.B. behind. 

A.B. was found four hours later by her son. The rear exterior 
5 A-0481-15T1

door had been kicked in and the police recovered from the door 

what they suspected was a footprint from one of the perpetrators. 

On January 29 or 30, 2013, a residence in Franklin Township 

in Gloucester County was burglarized. A neighbor unsuccessfully 

attempted to block a gold Volkswagen Jetta from leaving the scene. 

The neighbor gave the vehicle's license plate number to the police. 

The Volkswagen Jetta was leased from a Delaware car leasing store 

to Mosley's girlfriend, co-defendant Nicole Cumens. The police

determined the grey Chevy Suburban identified by witnesses to the 

November 21, 2012 burglary was owned by Cumens. 

On February 1, 2013, the New Jersey State Police surveilled 

Cumens's Delaware residence and the car leasing store. They were 

advised three new burglaries involving kicked-in rear doors were 

reported in Buena Vista that day. 

A gold Volkswagen bearing the same license plate seen at the 

January 29, 2013 burglary arrived at Cumens's residence. Mosley 

exited the vehicle and entered Cumens's home. Detectives later 

arrested Mosley when he exited the home. 

The police later learned a fourth residential burglary took 

place on February 1, 2013, in Gloucester County. A surveillance 

recording showed defendant and Mosley inside and outside of the 

residence during the burglary. Defendant and Mosley were charged 

with the burglary in Gloucester County. 
6 A-0481-15T1

When Mosley was arrested, the police recovered a phone from 

his pocket and two phones from his vehicle. The phones were 

unregistered "burner phones." Analysis of one of the phones showed 

it was used to make phone calls to the residences immediately 

prior to the burglaries and the kidnapping and robbery between 

January 19, 2013 and February 1, 2013. Data showed the phone was 

used to make numerous calls to the residences on the days the 

crimes charged in the indictment were committed. 

Data retrieved from the phone found in Mosley's pocket showed 

it was used to make multiple calls to the homes burglarized on 

November 20 and 21, 2012, just prior to the burglaries. Other 

data showed multiple phone calls were made to the homes burglarized 

between December 26, 2012 and January 19, 2013, just prior to the 

burglaries.

In Mosley's vehicle, the police found ski masks, multiple 

pairs of shoes, black gloves, Western Union receipts and the 

homeowner's belongings from one of the February 1, 2013 burglaries.

A shoe recovered from the vehicle matched the shoe print found on 

the rear door of A.B.'s home. During the investigation, evidence

recovered from a Philadelphia pawn shop showed defendant and Mosley 

pawned jewelry stolen during the November 2012 burglaries.

Months after his arrest, Mosley gave a statement describing 

the commission of the crimes. He explained that he and defendant 
7 A-0481-15T1

obtained "burner phones" which they first used to obtain the phone 

numbers of the residences, including A.B.'s home. They called the 

residences multiple times to determine if anyone was home. If 

their calls were unanswered, they kicked in the rear doors, and 

burglarized the homes to steal valuables, primarily targeting 

jewelry. 

Mosley explained he drove the Volkswagen Jetta on January 25, 

2013 when A.B. was robbed and kidnapped. According to Mosley, he, 

defendant and a person he identified as T.T.2 drove by A.B.'s 

house, made phone calls to the home and received no answer. Mosley 

said defendant and T.T. went to the rear of the residence, kicked

in the back door, went inside and made contact with the homeowner.3

Mosley said defendant and T.T. tied up A.B. and took her 

belongings. 

When defendant was arrested, he was in possession of a cell 

phone. Hannigan generally described that the data from defendant's 

 

2 We use initials to protect the privacy of anyone sharing the 

name of the individual Mosley said committed the crimes. The 

individual named was never arrested or charged, and there is no 

other evidence in the record showing the person Mosley named 

committed any of the offenses.

3 Mosley's statement contradicted the physical evidence recovered 

at the scene. The shoe print recovered from the rear door matched 

the tread pattern of a sneaker from Mosley's car, and Mosley 

admitted the sneaker was his. 
8 A-0481-15T1

phone showed text messages between him and Mosley on the dates of, 

or just prior to, the January 2013 offenses. In the messages, 

defendant and Mosley communicated about when they intended to meet 

and whether the other wanted to "work" on particular days. 

The judge denied the State's motion for joinder of the 

unindicted Gloucester County charges with the Atlantic County 

indictment because defendant had not been indicted on the 

Gloucester County charges. The judge further determined that 

subject to holding a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing, evidence concerning the 

Gloucester County burglaries was admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) 

in the trial of the charges in the indictment. 

The court denied defendant's motion to sever counts twentyone through twenty-four, which charged offenses arising out of the 

robbery and kidnapping of A.B. Relying solely on Hannigan's grand 

jury testimony, the court determined the evidence showed the 

robbery and kidnapping were committed in a manner so similar to 

the commission of the residential burglaries that it established 

defendant's identity as a perpetrator. The court concluded that 

evidence concerning the robbery and kidnapping was otherwise 

admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) to prove defendant's identity as 

a perpetrator of the burglaries and, as a result, severance of the 

four counts was not required. 
9 A-0481-15T1

Seven months later, Mosley pleaded guilty to two counts of 

burglary and one count of kidnapping pursuant to a plea agreement. 

Mosley agreed to testify against defendant.

Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to three counts of 

burglary and one count of kidnapping. The State agreed to 

recommend a sentence not to exceed nineteen years subject to the 

requirements of the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-

7.1. Defendant's plea was conditioned on his right to appeal the 

denial of his severance motion. 

Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate nineteen-year 

custodial term, and ordered to pay $30,803.45 in restitution at 

the rate of $100 per month following his release. This appeal 

followed.

On appeal, defendant makes the following arguments:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DENYING [DEFENDANT'S] 

MOTION TO SEVER THE KIDNAPPING AND RELATED 

CHARGES CONTAINED IN COUNTS 21-24 OF THE 

INDICTMENT FROM THE REMAINING 21 COUNTS THAT 

DEALT WITH SEVEN OTHER BURGLARIES.[4]

POINT II

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON [DEFENDANT] IS 

UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY 

ORDERED THE REPAYMENT OF RESTITUTION AND 

 

4 As noted, the indictment actually includes thirty charges 

related to the eight burglaries, and four charges arising from the 

robbery and kidnapping at A.B.'s residence. 
10 A-0481-15T1

INCLUDED A STATEMENT IN THE JUDGMENT OF 

CONVICTION THAT THE TRIAL COURT "DOES NOT 

CONSENT TO A REDUCTION OF THE PRIMARY PAROLE 

ELIGIBILITY DATE PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 30:4-

123.67."

II.

We first address defendant's contention that the court erred 

by denying his motion to sever counts twenty-one through twentyfour from the remaining counts, which allege offenses arising out 

of the eight residential burglaries. Defendant argues the evidence

before the motion court did not establish the commission of 

"signature crimes" and therefore the court erred by finding 

evidence showing the commission of the robbery and kidnapping was 

admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) to prove defendant's identity as 

a perpetrator of the other offenses charged in the indictment. 

The State contends severance was not required because evidence 

showing defendant committed the robbery and kidnapping was 

otherwise admissible to prove defendant's identity as a 

perpetrator of the thirty other offenses charged in the indictment.

Where multiple criminal charges in an indictment are "based 

on the same conduct or aris[e] from the same episode," mandatory 

joinder of the charges is required. R. 3:15-1(b). Relief from 

mandatory joinder of charges may be granted in the trial court's 

discretion "if a party is prejudiced by their joinder." State v. 

Oliver, 133 N.J. 141, 150 (1993). 
11 A-0481-15T1

In our review of a trial court's decision permitting two or 

more offenses to be tried simultaneously, we "assess whether 

prejudice is present, and [the court's] judgment is reviewed for 

an abuse of discretion." State v. Sterling, 215 N.J. 65, 73 

(2013); accord State v. Chenique-Puey, 145 N.J. 334, 341 (1996). 

"The test for assessing prejudice is 'whether, assuming the 

charges were tried separately, evidence of the offenses sought to 

be severed would be admissible under [N.J.R.E. 404(b)] in the 

trial of the remaining charges.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) 

(quoting Chenique-Puey, 145 N.J. at 341). 

Here, defendant's severance motion required that the court 

determine whether evidence concerning the robbery and kidnapping

related charges was admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) in the trial 

of the indictment's thirty other charges. See Sterling, 215 N.J. 

at 73. It is "[t]he admissibility of the evidence in both trials 

that renders inconsequential the need for severance." State v. 

Davis, 390 N.J. Super. 573, 591 (App. Div. 2007) (citation 

omitted). 

Because of the dangers that admission of other crimes evidence 

presents, "evidence proffered under Rule 404(b) 'must pass [a] 

rigorous test.'" State v. Garrison, 228 N.J. 182, 194 (2017) 

(quoting State v. Kemp, 195 N.J. 136, 159 (2008)). In State v. 

Cofield, 127 N.J. 328, 338 (1992), our Supreme Court established 
12 A-0481-15T1

a four-part test for determining the admissibility of other-crime 

evidence: 

1. The evidence of the other crime must be 

admissible as relevant to a material issue;

2. It must be similar in kind and reasonably 

close in time to the offense charged;

3. The evidence of the other crime must be 

clear and convincing; and

4. The probative value of the evidence must 

not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice.

[Ibid. (quoting Cofield, 127 N.J. at 338).]

Where, as here, the court did not analyze the evidence under the 

Cofield test, we review de novo the determination that evidence 

is admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b). Garrison, 228 N.J. at 194; 

accord State v. Darby, 174 N.J. 509, 518 (2002). 

In making its determination under N.J.R.E. 404(b), the court

relied on Hannigan's grand jury testimony concerning the robbery 

and kidnapping and the other crimes charged in the indictment. 

The court found the evidence was admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) 

to prove defendant's identity as a perpetrator of the thirty 

burglary-related offenses. We therefore consider whether the 

evidence was admissible under the Cofield test to prove defendant's 

identity as a perpetrator of the thirty burglary-related charges 

in the indictment. See Sterling, 215 N.J. at 73. 
13 A-0481-15T1

Under the first prong, evidence is relevant if it makes an 

inference more probable and is related to a material issue in 

dispute. State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141, 160 (2011). Here, 

defendant's identity as a perpetrator of the offenses charged in 

the indictment was a material issue. State v. Henderson, 433 N.J. 

Super 94, 108 (App. Div. 2013) (noting the state "bears the burden 

of proving identity").

The State argues, and the court appeared to find, the evidence 

concerning the robbery and kidnapping proved defendant's identity 

as a perpetrator of the burglary-related crimes because all of the 

crimes charged in the indictment were signature crimes. There is 

a stringent standard for admitting other-crimes evidence to prove 

identity where, as here, "the State attempts to link a particular 

defendant to a crime on the basis of modus operandi, or a signature 

way of committing the crime." Sterling, 215 N.J. at 93; see also

Biunno, Weissbard & Zegas, Current N.J. Rules of Evidence, comment 

14 on N.J.R.E. 404(b) (2017). A more stringent standard is 

required "[b]ecause of the great hazard of prejudice," when other 

crime evidence is presented, "particularly when the venture is to 

prove identity . . . ." State v. Reldan, 185 N.J. Super. 494, 502 

(App. Div. 1982). 

To establish the commission of signature crimes, the evidence 

must show "the prior criminal activity with which defendant is 
14 A-0481-15T1

identified must be so nearly identical in method as to earmark the 

crime as defendant's handiwork." State v. Fortin, 162 N.J. 517, 

532 (2000) (quoting Reldan, 185 N.J. Super. at 502). The conduct 

must be unusual and distinctive, like a signature, and there must 

be proof of sufficient facts in both crimes to establish an unusual 

pattern. Ibid.; see also State v. Inman, 140 N.J. Super. 510, 516 

(App. Div. 1976) (finding admissibility of signature crime 

evidence is limited to where the crimes have "been committed by 

some novel or extraordinary means or in a peculiar or unusual 

manner"). 

Other-crime evidence, however, is inadmissible to establish 

identity where the crimes are not sufficiently similar. Sterling, 

215 N.J. at 97. In Sterling, the Court determined that evidence 

showing the perpetrators of separate sexual assaults used a condom, 

made racial comments and cut the victims' underwear was not 

sufficiently "unique, or even unusual," to "rise to the level of 

signature elements of a crime." Id. at 97-98. Similarly, in 

Reldan, 185 N.J. Super. at 503, we determined that evidence showing 

the defendant committed prior offenses by trying to choke his 

victims was inadmissible as signature crime evidence to prove his 

identity as the perpetrator of two murders where the victims were 

strangled with a pantyhose ligature. 
15 A-0481-15T1

Here, the evidence showed the robbery and kidnapping and the 

burglary-related charges shared some common elements: the 

perpetrators called the home phone numbers before forcing entry 

through the rear doors, and then stole items. However, we find 

nothing in those common elements that is "unusual and distinctive 

so as to be like a signature," Sterling, 215 N.J. at 95. In 

addition, there were dissimilarities in the commission of the 

offenses. For example, the evidence showed the perpetrators did 

not use the same means to force open the rear doors in certain 

instances, and there was no evidence showing the method used to 

force the doors open in others.5 

We are therefore not convinced the robbery and kidnapping and 

the burglaries charged in the indictment were committed in a 

unique, distinctive and identical manner sufficient to satisfy the 

"high burden that . . . [is] required when other-crimes evidence 

is admitted to prove identity through the use of signature crime 

analysis." Id. at 94-95. The evidence did not satisfy the 

heightened standard to establish the commission of signature 

crimes to prove defendant's identity. See id. at 97-98. 

 

5 The evidence showed that some of the doors were kicked in, one 

door was opened by throwing an object threw a window, and there 

was no evidence presented showing the method used to open the 

doors of some of the residences.
16 A-0481-15T1

The only other evidence establishing defendant's identity as 

a perpetrator of the crimes charged in the indictment was 

Hannigan's grand jury testimony about Mosley's statements to the 

police. As noted, Mosley told the police he and defendant 

committed the burglaries, and he was with defendant when defendant 

and T.T. broke into A.B.'s home and committed the robbery and 

kidnapping. The statements attributed to Mosley support a finding 

of admissibility under the under the first prong of the Cofield

test. It is "relevant to a material issue genuinely in dispute" 

- defendant's identity. State v. Gillispie, 208 N.J. 59, 86

(2011).

The second Cofield prong, requiring evidence concerning the 

robbery and kidnapping be "similar in kind and close in time to 

the" other offenses charged, is applicable where identity is at

issue. State v. Carswell, 303 N.J. Super. 462, 470-71 (App. Div. 

1997). However, "[t]emporality and similarity of conduct is not 

always applicable, and thus not required in all cases." Rose, 206 

N.J. at 160; see also State v. Williams, 190 N.J. 114, 131 (2007) 

(finding the second prong's "usefulness as a requirement is limited 

to cases that replicate the circumstances in Cofield"). We do not 

find the second Cofield prong applicable here because, as noted, 

there is insufficient evidence showing a similarity in the 

commission of the robbery and kidnapping and the other offenses 
17 A-0481-15T1

to establish defendant's identity as a perpetrator of the other 

offenses. 

The third prong requires that the prosecution establish by 

"'clear and convincing' evidence" that the other crimes or acts 

occurred. Rose, 206 N.J. at 160 (quoting Cofield, 127 N.J. at 

338). To satisfy this prong, the State was required to demonstrate 

by clear and convincing evidence defendant committed the robbery 

and kidnapping. Ibid. The trial court must ordinarily conduct a 

N.J.R.E. 104 hearing to "hear the specific content of the othercrime testimony[,] . . . assess its relevance to an issue in 

dispute and its necessity to the proof of that issue" and 

"determine whether it finds proof of the other crime to be clear 

and convincing." State v. Hernandez, 170 N.J. 106, 127 (2001).

Because the court did not hold a N.J.R.E. 104 hearing, the 

evidence showing defendant committed the robbery and kidnapping 

was limited to Hannigan's testimony about Mosley's statements to 

the police. Although the testimony of an uncorroborated accomplice 

may constitute clear and convincing evidence of a defendant's 

commission of another crime, id. at 125-26, hearsay does not 

support a finding the State proved a defendant's commission of 

another crime by clear and convincing evidence, State v. Sheppard, 

437 N.J. Super. 171, 201 (App. Div. 2014). Moreover, Mosley's 

statements to the police do not constitute clear and convincing 
18 A-0481-15T1

evidence that defendant committed the robbery and kidnapping 

because the motion court did not assess the statements in a 

N.J.R.E. 104 hearing and the statements were unchallenged by crossexamination. See Hernandez, 170 N.J. at 127 (finding a N.J.R.E. 

104 hearing to assess the testimony concerning defendant's 

commission of an other-crime was unnecessary because the court was 

presented with testimony concerning the commission of the crime 

in a separate proceeding where the witness was subject to "tough 

cross-examination"). Thus, the motion court lacked, and this 

court lacks, any evidentiary basis supporting a finding the State 

satisfied its burden under Cofield's third prong. See State v. 

Carlucci, 217 N.J. 129, 143 (2014) (finding police officer's 

testimony that defendant admitted prior crime was not clear and 

convincing evidence of the commission of the crime under Cofield). 

Cofield's fourth prong "recognizes that the 'inflammatory 

characteristic of other-crime evidence . . . mandates a careful 

and pragmatic evaluation by trial courts, based on the specific 

context in which the evidence is offered, to determine whether the 

probative worth of the evidence outweighs its potential for undue 

prejudice.'" State v. Willis, 225 N.J. 85, 99 (2016) (alteration 

in original) (quoting State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 302, 303 (1989)); 

accord Rose, 206 N.J. at 161.
19 A-0481-15T1

"'[T]he potential for undue prejudice need only outweigh 

probative value to warrant exclusion' of other-crime evidence." 

Willis, 225 N.J. at 99-100 (quoting State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 

553, 608 (2004)). "[I]f other less prejudicial evidence may be 

presented to establish the same issue, the balance in the weighing 

process will tip in favor of exclusion." Rose, 206 N.J. at 161

(quoting State v. Barden, 195 N.J. 375, 392 (2008)). "Thus, courts 

have interpreted N.J.R.E. 404(b) 'as a rule of exclusion rather 

than a rule of inclusion.'" Willis, 225 N.J. at 100 (quoting 

State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 483 (1997)). 

The motion court failed to conduct the "careful and pragmatic 

evaluation" of the evidence required to determine if the probative 

value of the evidence concerning the robbery and kidnapping was 

outweighed by its potential prejudice in proving defendant's 

identity as a perpetrator of the burglaries. See Willis, 225 N.J. 

at 99. The record does not reveal any physical evidence connecting 

defendant's alleged commission of the robbery and kidnapping to 

the burglary-related offenses or showing he committed those 

offenses.6 Again, defendant's alleged commission of the robbery 

 

6 The State argues that defendant was found in possession of "one 

of the burner phones" used to call the various homes during the 

commission of the offenses. In support of the argument, the State 

cites to Hannigan's grand jury testimony. Hannigan, however, did 

not testify there was any data retrieved from defendant's phone 
20 A-0481-15T1

and kidnapping was shown solely through Hannigan's testimony about 

Mosley's statements. 

Mosley's statement concerning defendant's alleged commission 

of the robbery and kidnapping has no probative value in 

establishing defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the other 

crimes charged in the indictment. That is, if the burglary-related 

charges were tried separately, Mosley's testimony defendant 

committed the robbery and kidnapping would not establish 

defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the burglaries. The 

State does not argue otherwise. The State contends only that 

evidence concerning the robbery and kidnapping is probative of 

defendant's identity because the crimes charged in the indictment 

are signature crimes. As noted, we find no support in the record 

for that position.

In addition to Hannigan's testimony about Mosley's 

statements, Hannigan explained the phones found in Mosley's

possession were used to call all of the residences prior to the 

commission of the crimes charged in the indictment. It might be 

argued Mosley's statement that defendant was a perpetrator of all 

 

showing it was used to call A.B.'s residence or any of the 

residences where the burglaries were committed. Hannigan 

testified only that the phones recovered from Mosley were used to 

call the various residences.
21 A-0481-15T1

of the offenses, and the data retrieved from the phones, establish 

defendant's identity by connecting him to the commission of all 

of the crimes charged in the indictment. 

Even if viewed in that manner, however, evidence concerning 

the robbery and kidnapping is only minimally probative of 

defendant's identity as a perpetrator of the burglaries because 

it is duplicative and cumulative. State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 

151 (2014) (noting that other crimes evidence is minimally 

probative where it constitutes "needless presentation of 

cumulative evidence"). That is, Mosley's statement that defendant 

committed the robbery and kidnapping adds little to his statement 

directly implicating and identifying defendant as a perpetrator 

of the thirty burglary-related offenses charged in the indictment. 

Thus, there is less prejudicial evidence of defendant's identity 

as a perpetrator of the burglary related offenses than Mosley's 

statement concerning defendant's commission of the robbery and 

kidnapping. See State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. Super. 347, 365 (2004)

(citation omitted) ("[I]n deciding whether prejudice outweighs 

probative value, 'a court must consider the availability of other 

evidence that can be used to prove the same point.'").

Under the fourth prong of the Cofield standard, we weigh the 

probative value of the evidence concerning the robbery and 

kidnapping against the possible prejudice defendant would suffer 
22 A-0481-15T1

if the evidence was admitted to prove the thirty burglary-related 

offenses. Willis, 225 N.J. 85, 99. The grand jury testimony 

showed that during the robbery and kidnapping eighty-five-yearold A.B. "was manhandled and thrown onto [a] chair," her hands and 

feet were bound with a phone cord, and she was tied to the leg of 

a chair. A.B. was placed on her knees with her hands pulled behind 

her back, with her chest and stomach face down over the front of 

the chair. She was left in that position during the short time 

the perpetrators were in her home and for the four hours that 

passed before her son found her.

The evidence showing the manner in which the robbery and 

kidnapping of A.B. was committed demonstrates a propensity to use 

violence and force against a helpless victim that was not relevant 

in the eight burglaries. We are convinced the evidence posed an 

obvious and compelling potential for substantial and undue

prejudice against defendant on the other thirty charges in the 

indictment. The prejudice clearly outweighed the negligible, if 

not nonexistent, probative value of the evidence. 

We are convinced evidence concerning the robbery and 

kidnapping was not admissible under N.J.R.E. 404(b) to prove

defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the thirty burglaryrelated charges. The court erred by finding otherwise, and by 

denying defendant's severance motion. See Sterling, 215 N.J. at 
23 A-0481-15T1

73. We reverse the court's order denying defendant's severance 

motion, vacate defendant's conviction and sentence, and remand for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

III.

Although our reversal of defendant's conviction renders it 

unnecessary to address his remaining arguments, we offer the 

following comments in the event defendant is convicted of any of 

the offenses after trial or in accordance with a negotiated plea 

agreement on remand. Defendant challenged the court's order that 

he make restitution in the amount of $30,803.45 at the rate of 

$100 per month following his release from incarceration. He 

contended the court erred by ordering restitution without 

conducting a hearing or making any findings about his ability to 

pay. The State agreed, as do we.

A determination that a defendant shall pay restitution 

requires, at a minimum, a summary hearing to protect a defendant's 

due process rights, State v. Pessolano, 343 N.J. Super. 464, 479 

(App. Div. 2001) (citations omitted), unless there is no dispute 

as to the issue, State v. Orji, 277 N.J. Super. 582, 589-90 (App. 

Div. 1994); see also State v. Jamiolkoski, 272 N.J. Super. 326, 

329 (App. Div. 1994) (holding that a hearing other than a summary 

proceeding must be conducted when there exists a good faith dispute 

regarding a defendant's ability to pay). The judge is required 
24 A-0481-15T1

to "explain the reasons underlying the sentence, including the 

decision to order restitution, the amount of the restitution, and 

its payment terms." State v. Scribner, 298 N.J. Super. 366, 371 

(App. Div. 1997). 

If on remand the court is required to determine the issue of 

restitution, it shall "conduct a hearing at which the parties may 

present evidence regarding" the victims' losses and defendant's 

ability to pay. State v. Kennedy, 152 N.J. 413, 425 (1998). If 

the court sentences defendant to pay restitution, it shall "explain 

the reasons underlying its decision, including the amount of 

restitution awarded and the terms of payment." Ibid. 

Defendant also argued the court erred by stating in the 

judgment of conviction that it "does not consent to a reduction 

of [defendant's] primary parole eligibility date pursuant to 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.67." The statute authorizes a defendant to 

enter into a written parole contract agreement with the New Jersey 

Department of Corrections (NJDOC) stipulating that the defendant's 

completion of "individual programs of education, training, or 

other activity" will result in a reduction of the defendant's 

primary parole eligibility date under N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.52. 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.67(a); see also Trantino v. N.J. State Parole 

Bd., 166 N.J. 113, 208 n.3 (2001) (Baime, J., dissenting). 

Defendant claims the sentencing court has no role in the decision 
25 A-0481-15T1

allowing entry into a parole agreement and, as a result, the 

court's statement in the judgment of conviction was erroneous and 

should be deleted. 

A sentencing court may either provide or withhold consent to 

a reduction in a defendant's primary parole eligibility date. 

N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.67(a), which allows a defendant's entry into a 

parole agreement reducing the primary parole eligibility date, is 

qualified by N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.52. The statute requires the 

sentencing court's consent to a reduction in a defendant's primary 

parole eligibility date. N.J.S.A. 30:4-123.52(b).

Thus, a sentencing court may include in a judgment of 

conviction its lack of consent to any reduction of a defendant's

primary parole eligibility date that may be sought by entering 

into a parole contract under N.J.S.A. 30:4:123-67(a). A sentencing

court's consent to a reduction of defendant's primary parole 

eligibility date is required under N.J.S.A. 30:3-123.52(b).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance 

with this decision. We do not retain jurisdiction.