NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2863-15T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTOINE L. HENDERSON,
Defendant-Appellant. ______________________________
Submitted April 9, 2018 - Decided January 24, 2019
Before Judges Accurso, O'Connor and Vernoia.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Indictment Nos. 13-09-2328 and 14-11-2861.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Alyssa A. Aiello, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel on the brief).
Joseph D. Coronato, Ocean County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Samuel J. Marzarella, Chief Appellate Attorney, of counsel; Roberta DiBiase, Supervising Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). This opinion of the court was delivered by
O'CONNOR, J.A.D.
Defendant Antoine L. Henderson appeals from a judgment of conviction
entered following a jury trial, as well as from his pretrial motion to suppress
evidence. In light of the record and applicable legal standards, we affirm.
A jury convicted defendant of second-degree distribution of heroin
within 500 feet of a public park or building, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1(a); second-
degree possession of heroin within 500 feet of a public park or building,
N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1(a); third-degree possession of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-
10(a)(1); third-degree possession of heroin with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A.
2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3); and third-degree distribution of
heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(3). After the
appropriate mergers, defendant was sentenced to a twelve-year term of
imprisonment, with a six-year period of parole ineligibility.
Defendant raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I - THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE.
A. THE LEGALITY OF THE INITIAL DETENTION.
B. ACCETTURO'S ACT OF RESISTING SHEPHERD'S EFFORTS TO HANDCUFF
A-2863-15T3 HIM DID NOT PURGE THE TAINT OF THE ILLEGAL STOP.
POINT II - REVERSAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY DENIED HENDERSON'S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL MADE WHEN SCANDIFFIO TOLD THE JURY THAT HENDERSON IS "A KNOWN DRUG DEALER." IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REVERSAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE COMBINED PREJUDICE RESULTING FROM SCANDIFFIO'S HIGHLY DAMAGING REMARK AND FROM TESTIMONY, IMPERMISSIBLY ELICITED BY THE PROSECUTOR, THAT ACCETTURO HAD PURCHASED DRUGS FROM HENDERSON IN THE PAST AND THAT THE AREA WHERE THE DRUG SALE ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED HAS BEEN THE SITE OF NUMEROUS DRUG- RELATED ARRESTS IN THE PAST, DEPRIVED HENDERSON OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL. (NOT RAISED BELOW).
A. THE PRIOR CRIMES EVIDENCE INTRODUCED FIRST THROUGH ACCETTURO AND THEN THROUGH SCANDIFFIO VIOLATED N.J.R.E. 404(b).
B. TESTIMONY THAT THE AREA IN WHICH HENDERSON WAS ARRESTED HAS BEEN THE SITE OF NUMEROUS DRUG ARRESTS IN THE PAST WAS IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL.
C. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO GRANT HENDERSON'S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL MADE AFTER SCANDIFFIO TOLD THE JURY THAT HENDERSON WAS "A KNOWN DRUG DEALER." IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REVERSAL IS REQUIRED