OBJECTED WERE
14 A-5025-13T2 CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY IMPROPER WHERE THE THEME SHE CONVEYED TO THE JURY PORTRAYED THE DEFENDANT AND HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY AS LIARS.
POINT VII: CONTRARY TO ITS EXPRESSED INTENTION THAT, IN ORDER TO RECOGNIZE THERE CAN BE NO FREE CRIMES, IT WOULD IMPOSE SEPARATE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ON EACH OF THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES INVOLVING EACH VICTIM, THE SENTENCING COURT DID OTHERWISE WITHOUT EXPLANATION.
POINT VIII: UNDER THE PRE-AMENDMENT STATUTE, THE APPLICATION OF NERA REQUIRED A JURY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OFFENSE WAS A "VIOLENT CRIME".
Defendant raises the following issues in his pro se
supplemental brief:
POINT I: WHERE JUDGE . . . , J.S.C. PERSONALLY KNEW MR. KILLION AND FAILED TO RECUSE HIMSELF, ALL ARREST AND SEARCH WARRANTS ISSUED BY SAID JUDGE MUST BE DEEMED INVALID.[3]
POINT II: COUNTS 32, 33, 34, 35 AND 36 MUST BE DISMISSED AND THE ASSOCIATED GUILTY VERDICTS VACATED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVIDE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE TO THE GRAND JURY PERTAINING TO SUPERVISORY POWERS OVER [DAVID] AT THE TIME THE ALLEGED OFFENSES OCCURRED (NOT RAISED BELOW).
POINT III: THE ERRONEOUS JURY CHARGE IS NOT LEGALLY ACCURATE, FACTUALLY SUPPORTABLE OR
3 The trial judge conducted an investigation as to whether the judge who approved the search warrant knew at the time that defendant was connected to the Boy Scouts and found no evidence that the judge was aware of the connection. Based on this decision, and for the reasons expressed by the trial judge in his April 23, 2013 letter opinion quashing defendant's subpoena of the judge who issued the warrant, we reject the argument raised in defendant's pro se Point I. 15 A-5025-13T2 SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, THUS CONSTITUTING REVERSIBLE ERROR.
A. LEGALLY VAGUE REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTIONS. B. DIFFERING THEORIES OF LIABILITY FOR 4, 5, AND 38. C. ERRONEOUSLY ADDING [DAVID] TO COUNT 39.
POINT IV: WHERE THE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE THAT ANY CONDUCT OR RESULT OCCURRED WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE, BASING THE VERDICT ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE VIOLATED MR. KILLION'S DUE PROCESS AND FAIR TRIAL BY JURY RIGHTS AFFORDED BY THE U.S. CONST. AMEND. V, VI, AND XIV.
A. LACK OF JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO [JOEY] B. LACK OF JURSIDICTION FOR MANUFACTURING C. LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR PUBLISHING
POINT V: WHERE K.C. WAS PRESENTED AS A FRESH COMPLAINT WITNESS AND HER TESTIMONY WENT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF FRESH COMPLAINT HEARSAY, THUS BOLSTERING VICTIM TESTIMONY AND CLEARLY CAPABLE OF PRODUCING AN UNJUST RESULT, MR. KILLION WAS DENIED HIS DUE PROCESS AND FAIR TRIAL BY JURY RIGHTS AFFORDED BY THE U.S. CONST. AMEND V, VI, AND XIV AND N.J. CONST. ART. I, PARA. 9 AND 10. (NOT RAISED BELOW)
Defendant through counsel raises the following issues in his
reply brief:
POINT I: SEXUAL CONTACT OF THE ACTOR WITH HIMSELF OR WITH THE VICTIM IS NECESSARY TO PROVE A VIOLATION OF N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2b.
POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THAT THE SEPARATE QUESTION ON THE VERDICT SHEET WOULD DETERMINE THE DEFENDANT'S DEGREE OF CULPABILITY UNDULY PREJUDICED THE DEFENDANT'S