Title: State v. David Hernandez
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-63-00
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: November 21, 2001

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). LA VECCHIA, J., writing for a majority of the Court. This appeal presents an opportunity for the Court to consider whether uncorroborated, other-crimes testimony provided by a co-defendant cooperating with the prosecution should be banned per se because it cannot satisfy the clear and convincing standard of proof required for the admission of other-crime evidence. Defendant and George Gerardi were indicted on drug charges including possession of a controlled dangerous substance (crack-cocaine) with intent to distribute. Gerardi was given a favorable plea bargain based on his agreement to testify for the State at defendant's trial. At a pre-trial hearing, defense counsel moved to exclude Gerardi's testimony concerning the details of his relationship with defendant during the two months that preceded their arrest on February 11, 1997. The assistant prosecutor represented that Gerardi would testify that he and defendant had known each other in school and that Gerardi stared working for defendant in December 1996 selling drugs. The assistant prosecutor further represented that Gerardi would describe the usual manner in which he and defendant conducted their sales. The trial court ruled that Gerardi's testimony was admissible so that the State could explain the association of Gerardi and defendant and the nature of the transaction witnessed by police officers. At trial, a police officer testified that on February 11, 1997, he was on surveillance at an area known for its high incidence of drug trafficking. He observed a woman approach defendant and Gerardi, and hand paper money to Gerardi. Defendant and Gerardi then engaged in a conversation, and Gerardi pulled a paper bag from his right sleeve, removed an object from the bag, and handed it to the woman. Gerardi then handed the paper currency to defendant. Defendant and Gerardi were arrested immediately. A search revealed that Gerardi had in his possession a paper bag containing eleven baggies filled with crack-cocaine. He also possessed a glassine envelope containing suspected heroin. A search of defendant produced a total of $363 in cash in small bills. Gerardi testified that he began selling crack-cocaine for defendant sometime around the 1996 Christmas holidays. He further testified that he sold crack-cocaine for defendant on approximately twenty occasions between December 1996 and February 11, 1997, the date of the arrest. Gerardi also testified that on one occasion during this period, he accompanied defendant to New York City where defendant purchased a block of crack cocaine for between $300 and $400. In addition, Gerardi testified that while he was in jail awaiting trial, defendant had offered to pay him between $50 and $100 per week if Gerardi would testify that defendant had no involvement in the drug sales. Gerardi agreed, but when a few weeks went by without defendant paying the money as promised, Gerardi decided to enter a plea and testify against defendant. As might be expected, defense counsel engaged in a withering cross-examination of Gerardi. Defendant never testified, but the defense theory was that Gerardi had handed defendant cash on February 11, 1997, because he owed defendant money. Nonetheless, the jury convicted defendant on the intent to distribute charges. He was sentenced to eight years in prison with a four-year period of parole ineligibility. The Appellate Division reversed. State v. Hernandez, 334 N.J. Super. 264 (App. Div. 2000). The Appellate Division concluded that the other-crime evidence presented through Gerardi's testimony was incapable of meeting the clear and convincing standard of proof required for such evidence because it was uncorroborated testimony of a co-defendant testifying against the defendant pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. The Appellate Division went on to address the specifics of Gerardi's testimony on cross-examination, noting that he admitted that he lies under oath with impunity, felt hostility to defendant, and testified against defendant as a required term of the lenient plea bargain he had struck. Although the State and Attorney General claim that the Appellate Division adopted a per se rule, the Appellate Division arguably was deciding the case on the facts before it and on its view of the credibility of Gerardi's testimony. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certification. HELD: The Court rejects a per se ban on uncorroborated other-crime testimony of a cooperating co-defendant. Hernandez's conviction must be reversed, however, because the jury was not specifically advised of the limited use it could make of the other-crimes testimony. 1. Evidence of an accused's other crimes or acts cannot be offered for purposes of showing the propensity of the person to commit a crime. It can be used, however, when relevant to a material issue in dispute and necessary as proof of the disputed issue. A four-part test has been devised to screen for the admissibility of such evidence: 1. it must be relevant to a material issue; 2. it must be similar in kind and close in time to the offense charged; 3. the evidence must be clear and convincing; and 4. the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice. State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992). (Pp. 12-20) 2. Defendant and amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey urge the Court to adopt a per se rule banning uncorroborated testimony of other-crime evidence offered by a cooperating co-defendant. There is no other jurisdiction that imposes an absolute ban on such uncorroborated accomplice testimony. Such a rule would be inconsistent with New Jersey precedent, which allows uncorroborated accomplice testimony to support a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. The four-prong test established by Cofield provides an appropriate framework for assessing whether other-crime evidence should be admitted. (Pp. 21-24) 3. The Court disagrees with the conclusion of the Appellate Division that Gerardi's testimony, and in particular his cross-examination, demonstrated overwhelmingly that it could not satisfy a clear and convincing standard of proof. Gerardi's admissions were readily acknowledged on direct examination, not wrested from him on cross- examination. More importantly, Gerardi's demeanor and overall candor were observed by the trial court. An abuse of discretion standard of review applies to the trial court's determination concerning the admissibility of other-crime evidence. Because the trial court did not conduct a Rule 104 hearing, the Court does not have the benefit of the trial court's analysis of each Cofield prong. Nevertheless, the trial court could find that portions of Gerardi's testimony could pass the Cofield four-part analysis. Gerardis' statement that he and defendant sold drugs in the manner described twenty times before, however, is extremely prejudicial and smacks of prohibited propensity evidence. The admission of that evidence was capable of producing an unjust result. (Pp. 24-31) 4. The Appellate Division also stated that the jury charge failed to specifically advise the jury of the limited use it may make of Gerardi's testimony. The Court agrees that the trial court did not focus the jury precisely on the permissible uses of the other-crime evidence in the facts of this case and those issues genuinely in dispute. The deficiency in the instruction is sufficient to raise reasonable doubt about the reliability of defendant's conviction. (Pp. 31-35) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED as modified, and the matter is REMANDED to the Law Division for further proceedings. JUSTICE VERNIERO has filed a separate, concurring opinion, expressing the view that the adequacy of the jury instruction is a close question, especially when considered under the plain-error standard. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and ZAZZALI join in JUSTICE LaVECCHIA's opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO has also filed a separate, concurring opinion. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Respondent. __________________________ Argued September 10, 2001 -- Decided November 21,2001 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 334 N.J. Super. 264 (2000). Marc A. Festa, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant (Boris Moczula, Acting Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney; Michelle Katich, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the briefs). Edward T. Ehler argued the cause for respondent. Bennett A. Barlyn, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey, (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney). Lawrence S. Lustberg argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger &amp; Vecchione, attorneys; Mr. Lustberg and Risa E. Kaufman, on the brief). The opinion of the Court was written by LaVECCHIA, J. This appeal presents an opportunity for the Court to consider whether uncorroborated, other-crimes testimony provided by a co-defendant cooperating with the prosecution should be banned per se because it cannot satisfy the clear and convincing standard of proof required for the admission of other-crime evidence. Prior to trial, defendant David Hernandez sought to limit the testimony of George Gerardi, who, although indicted with defendant for certain drug offenses, agreed to give testimony against defendant in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Defendant sought to exclude Gerardi's testimony concerning the business relationship between the two men in the two months preceding defendant's arrest. The trial court admitted the testimony, and ultimately, the jury convicted defendant. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a new trial. State v. Hernandez, 334 N.J. Super. 264, 274 (2000). The panel held that Gerardi's uncorroborated testimony could not satisfy the clear and convincing standard of proof that is a prerequisite to the admission of other-crime evidence under State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992): We are satisfied, however, that the uncorroborated testimony of a co-defendant testifying against defendant pursuant to a favorable plea agreement, and particularly the testimony of this co-defendant, falls so far short of clear and convincing evidence as to mandate the exclusion of his other-crimes evidence. [State v. Hernandez, supra, 334 N.J. Super. at 271.] We granted certification, 167 N.J. 88 (2001). Although it is not clear that the Appellate Division adopted a per se exclusionary rule concerning accomplice testimony in respect of other crimes, the issue is squarely presented and in our view should be addressed. We now reject the application of a per se rule excluding other-crime evidence provided through the uncorroborated testimony of a co-defendant cooperating with the prosecution. Nonetheless, we affirm the Appellate Division's reversal and remand for a new trial because of the unduly prejudicial nature of a portion of Gerardi's testimony, and because the limiting instruction was inadequate to counsel the jury appropriately on the permissible uses of Gerardi's other- crime testimony. for a hearing outside the presence of the jury . . . . The following facts were adduced at trial. Officer Henry Morales testified that he and his partner set up a surveillance of the corner of River Street and Sixth Avenue in the City of Paterson on February 11, 1997. The area was known for its high incidence of drug trafficking. The surveillance vantage point was an elevated position within twenty feet of a pool hall that was the focus of the surveillance. Officer Morales observed a woman, later identified as Martha Sanchez, approach defendant and Gerardi. Both were standing in front of the pool hall. Officer Morales saw Sanchez hand paper currency to Gerardi while defendant, who was paying attention to what was transpiring, stood a few feet away. The officer observed defendant and Gerardi engage in conversation before Gerardi pulled a paper bag from the right sleeve of his jacket and removed an object from the bag. He handed the object to Sanchez. Officer Morales then observed Gerardi hand the paper currency to defendant. Following that transaction, Officer Morales and his partner arrested Gerardi and defendant. A search revealed that Gerardi had in his possession a paper bag containing eleven baggies filled with suspected crack-cocaine. He also possessed a glassine envelope containing suspected heroin. A search of defendant produced a total of $363 in cash in denominations of twenty dollar bills or smaller. Gerardi testified next. He stated that a few days after he was released from Yardville Youth Correctional Facility on December 12, 1996, he ran into defendant, a long-time acquaintance. During their brief exchange, defendant asked whether Gerardi was interested in making a little money here and there. Gerardi understood that to mean selling drugs and agreed. He testified that he began selling crack-cocaine for defendant sometime around the 1996 Christmas holidays. The arrangements were that for every twenty baggies he would sell for $5 per bag, defendant would pay him $30. Gerardi testified that he sold crack-cocaine for defendant on approximately twenty occasions between December of 1996 and February 11, 1997, when he was arrested. He stated that defendant would remain in close proximity while Gerardi would make a sale because defendant did not trust him with the sale proceeds. Gerardi had once used drug sale proceeds to purchase heroin for his personal habit. Gerardi also testified that it was his understanding that defendant purchased his drugs in New York City. On one occasion between the end of December 1996 and February 11, 1997, he accompanied defendant to New York where defendant purchased a block of crack cocaine for between $300 and $400. Gerardi testified that on February 11, 1997, he met defendant on River Street some time between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. Defendant asked him if he was alright, which Gerardi understood as an inquiry concerning whether he needed heroin before beginning to sell for defendant. After he told defendant he needed a bag of heroin, defendant gave him $10, told him to get straight, and that when he returned he could sell the crack- cocaine. Gerardi left the area and purchased a bag of heroin. He then returned to River Street to rejoin defendant. At 6:45 p.m. a police car pulled along the sidewalk where Gerardi was standing and the officer instructed him to leave the corner. Gerardi complied, but returned once the police left the area. He and defendant then went into a nearby restaurant on River Street, and while they were waiting for the food defendant had ordered, defendant handed Gerardi a plastic bag containing approximately twenty-five baggies filled with crack-cocaine. Gerardi placed the plastic bag into a paper bag and then put the bag into the right sleeve of his jacket. Gerardi exited the restaurant to sell the drugs. Defendant followed him outside and sat in a nearby doorway. A man approached Gerardi and inquired whether he could purchase nine bags for $40. Gerardi explained that this was known as a play or discount, and because he was not authorized to give play, he consulted defendant who authorized the sale. Gerardi remained outside the restaurant and engaged in a few more transactions, immediately giving all proceeds to defendant after each sale. The two then returned to the restaurant. Gerardi testified that he had to eat before he could take the heroin he had purchased earlier. Once they finished eating, Gerardi and defendant returned to the sidewalk on River Street. Gerardi stood directly in front of the pool hall located at 591 River Street and defendant stood approximately ten feet away. Gerardi was approached by a woman he knew by the name of Candy Sanchez. Sanchez wanted to purchase three baggies for $13. Unauthorized to make the sale without defendant's approval, Gerardi told Sanchez to ask defendant. Sanchez then called over to defendant to ask whether he would agree to the play. Defendant, speaking directly to Sanchez, agreed to the sale. Gerardi gave three bags of crack to Sanchez after she handed him $13. He then handed the money to defendant. Immediately after that transaction, police arrested both Gerardi and defendant. On direct examination, Gerardi testified that while he was in jail awaiting trial, defendant offered to pay him between $50 and $100 per week for the entire period of his incarceration if Gerardi would testify that defendant had no involvement in the drug transaction and that the drugs and money belonged solely to Gerardi. He asked Gerardi to testify that when Gerardi handed the money to defendant it was because defendant owed him money. Gerardi agreed to defendant's terms. However, when a few weeks went by and defendant, who was out on bail, did not pay the promised money, Gerardi decided against taking the weight for defendant. He subsequently entered into a plea agreement that was conditioned on his cooperation with the State in the criminal case against defendant. As might be expected, defense counsel engaged in a withering cross-examination of Gerardi designed to attack his character. Defendant never testified, but the defense theory was that defendant had nothing to do with Gerardi's drug sale on February 11, 1997. According to that theory, Gerardi handed defendant cash on February 11, 1997, because he owed defendant money. Nonetheless, the jury convicted defendant of Counts Two and Three, the possession with intent to distribute charges. The jury acquitted defendant on Count One, simple possession. The trial court refused to mold the verdict to dismiss Counts Two and Three on the basis of an inconsistent verdict, and sentenced defendant to eight years with a four-year period of parole ineligibility. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The panel stated that it need not decide the first prong of the Cofield analysis, that is, whether Gerardi's testimony was probative of a fact in issue that was directly involved in the proof of the crime, although it expressed some doubt on the subject. The panel concluded that the other-crime evidence presented through Gerardi's testimony was incapable of meeting the clear and convincing standard of proof required under the third prong of Cofield because it was uncorroborated testimony of a co-defendant testifying against [the] defendant pursuant to a favorable plea agreement. State v. Hernandez, supra, 334 N.J. Super. at 271. The Appellate Division, however, went on to address the specifics of Gerardi's testimony. Noting that Gerardi admitted that he lies under oath with impunity, felt hostility to defendant, and testified against defendant as a required term of the lenient plea bargain he had struck, the court concluded that Gerardi's testimony fell far short of the clear and convincing standard. Id. at 272. Arguably, then, the Appellate Division was not adopting a per se rule, but deciding the case on the facts before it and on its view of the credibility of Gerardi's testimony. The State and the Attorney General, however, claim that the court adopted a per se rule and urge us to address the propriety of such a rule. The parties and amicus curiae have briefed thoroughly the question whether this Court should adopt a per se exclusionary rule when uncorroborated other-crime testimony is offered by a cooperating co-defendant. We will therefore address both that question and, because we reject a per se rule, the application of Cofield to the specific evidence in the record before us. The requirement that the State must produce clear and convincing evidence of other-crime conduct before such evidence may be admitted is firmly rooted in New Jersey case law. This Court articulated the requirement in State v. Stevens, supra, 115 N.J. at 289. In Stevens, the defendant, a police officer, was indicted for official misconduct. The admissibility of three other instances of misconduct by the defendant became an issue in the case. The victims of the alleged misconduct provided testimony concerning the other incidents that had not been the bases of criminal charges. 115 N.J. at 297. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division, noting that the trial court had conducted a hearing to determine the admissibility of the three other instances of alleged misconduct, and that the trial court had concluded there was clear and convincing evidence that on three prior occasions the defendant used his position to intimidate women sexually. Ibid. In State v. Harvey, 121 N.J. 407 (1990), the Court reiterated the Stevens rule, noting [t]he State bears the burden of proving other crimes by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 433. In Cofield then, when adopting the current four-prong test concerning other-crime evidence, the Court adhered to the settled preference for requiring clear and convincing evidence that the crime did in fact occur. State v. Oliver, 133 N.J. 141, 151 (1993). The Cofield decision questioned the more lenient approach to the admissibility of other-crime evidence taken by the federal courts, noting that the federal approach has not been without a price in trial management. 127 N.J. at 334-35. The Court observed that the admissibility of uncharged misconduct has been described as the single most important issue in contemporary criminal evidence law. Ibid. (quoting Edward J. Imwinkelried, The Use of Evidence of an Accused's Uncharged Misconduct to Prove Mens Rea: The Doctrines of Which Threatens to Engulf the Character Evidence Prohibition, 51 Ohio St. L.J. 575, 576 (1990)). The Court also observed that Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) has generated more published opinions than any other subsection of the Federal Rules . . . [and] errors in the introduction of uncharged misconduct are the most frequent basis for reversal in criminal cases. Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 335 (quoting Imwinkelried, supra, 51 Ohio St. L.J. at 577). Accordingly, the Cofield decision rejected application of the federal model for admissibility of other-crime evidence and articulated our four-prong standard. 127 N.J. at 334-35. See also 22 C. WRIGHT &amp; K. GRAHAM, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: EVIDENCE 5239, at 427 (1978) (stating that [t]here is no question of evidence more frequently litigated in the appellate courts than the admissibility of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts ); Evidence_The Emotional Propensity Exception: State v. Treadaway, 1 978 Ariz. St. L.J. 153, 156 n.29 (discussing criticism of other crimes or misconduct evidence). That determination included rejection of the federal standard concerning the level of proof required for admission of other- crime evidence. Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 334-35 (referencing more lenient standard of proof permitted by Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 108 S. Ct. 1496, 99 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1988)). In Huddleston v. United States, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether the district court must make a preliminary finding that the Government proved the other act under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by a preponderance of the evidence. 485 U.S. at 682, 108 S. Ct. at 1497, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 778. Huddleston resolved a split among circuit courts. Id. at 685, 108 S. Ct. at 1499, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 779. Prior to Huddleston, the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits allowed the admission of similar act evidence if the evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to find that the defendant committed the act. Id. at 685 n.2, 108 S. Ct. at 1499 n.2, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 779 n.2. See, e.g., United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 235 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 914 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920, 99 S. Ct. 1244, 59 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1979). The Sixth and Second Circuits prohibited the introduction of similar act evidence unless the trial judge found that the defendant committed the act by a preponderance of the evidence. Huddleston, supra, 485 U.S. at 685 n.2, 108 S. Ct. at 1499 n.2, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 779 n.2. See, e.g., United States v. Lenard, 524 F.2d 1076, 1090-91 (2d Cir. 1975). The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and District of Columbia Circuits required the Government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the act occurred. Huddleston, supra, 485 U.S. at 685 n.2, 108 S. Ct. at 1499 n.2, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 779 n.2. See, e.g., State v. Leight, 818 F.2d 1297, 1302 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 958, 108 S. Ct. 356, 98 L. Ed. 2d 381 (1987); United States v. Weber, 818 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v. Vaccaro, 816 F.2d 443, 452 (9th Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court held that the district court need not make a finding that the prosecution proved the act by a preponderance of the evidence. Rather, the trial court must examine all the evidence and decide whether the jury could reasonably conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the other crime, wrong, or bad act occurred and that the defendant was the actor. Huddleston, supra, 485 U.S. at 689-90, 108 S. Ct. at 1501, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 782-83. In other words, such evidence may be admitted if there is proof to support a possible jury finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act. The court does not make its own preliminary finding that it is persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government has proved the other act sought to be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). Id. at 690, 108 S. Ct. at 1501, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 782-83. Without discussing the merits of the clear and convincing standard, the Court turned to the legislative history of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) to support its holding. Id. at 687-689, 108 S. Ct. at 1500-01, 77 L. Ed. 2d at 780-82. See United States v. Gonzalez-Lira, 936 F.2d 184, 190 n.3 (5th Cir. 1991) (noting that there had been division among Circuit Courts concerning applicable standard of proof for introduction of evidence of prior bad acts, but Huddleston resolved that conflict). Despite Huddleston's interpretation of the standard of proof required by the Federal Rule of Evidence governing other crime evidence, many jurisdictions have rejected a preponderance of the evidence standard and instead require clear and convincing proof for the admission of other-crime evidence. The Supreme Court of Arizona, in State v. Terrazas, 944 P.2d 1194 (Ariz. 1997), has observed that the State of Arizona is not alone in requiring a higher standard of proof of an other crime or wrong, citing Johnson v. United States, 683 A.2d 1087, 1093 (D.C. App. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1148, 117 S. Ct. 1323, 137 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1997); Phillips v. State, 591 So. 2d 987, 989 (Fla. App. 1991); Ayers v. State, 645 A.2d 22, 37 (Md. 1994); State v. Spaeth, 552 N.W.2d 187, 193 (Minn. 1996); State v. Wilson, 556 N.W.2d 643, 652 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996); State v. Smith, 387 S.E.2d 245, 247 (S.C. 1989); State v. McCary, 922 S.W.2d 511, 514 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Cohen, 634 A.2d 380, 386 (Del. Super. 1992); State v. Howell, 557 N.W.2d 908, 911 (Iowa App. 1996); Winiarz v. State, 820 P.2d 1317, 1321 (Nev. 1991); State v. Michaud, 610 A.2d 354, 356 (N.H. 1992). See also Welch v. State, 2 P.3d 356, 365 (Okla. Crim. App. 2000) (requiring clear and convincing evidence); State v. Strain, 618 P.2d 331, 337 (Mont. 1980) (same). In adopting the clear and convincing proof requirement, the Terrazas court stated that there are important reasons to apply a clear and convincing standard, rather than some lesser standard, to evidence of prior bad acts. 944 P.2d at 1198. Such evidence is capable of having an impact beyond its relevance to the crime charged and may influence the jury's decision on issues other than those on which it was received, despite cautionary instructions from the judge. Ibid. (citing Note, Winship on Rough Waters: The Erosion of the Reasonable Doubt Standard, 106 Harv. L.Rev. 1093, 1103 (1990). The court further stated: Studies confirm that the introduction of a defendant's prior bad acts can easily tip the balance against the defendant. Edward J. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence, 1-SUM Crim. Just. 6, 8 (1986). Because of the high probability of prejudice from the admission of prior bad acts, the court must ensure that the evidence against the defendant directly establishes that the defendant took part in the collateral act, and [] shield the accused from prejudicial evidence based 'upon highly circumstantial inferences.' Vivian M. Rodriguez, The Admissibility of Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts Under the Intent Provision of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(B): The Weighing of Incremental Probity and Unfair Prejudice, 48 U. Miami L. Rev. 451, 457 (1993). The court concluded that [t]o allow a lesser standard in a criminal case is to open too large a possibility of prejudice. Ibid. The third prong of our Cofield test requires that the judge serve as gatekeeper to the admission of other-crime evidence. The trial court must make the finding that proof of the other- crime evidence is clear and convincing. Thus, the third prong of Cofield requires the trial court to ensure that the jury hears only clear and convincing proof that the other crime or bad act occurred and that the defendant was responsible for the conduct. State v. G.V., 162 N.J. 252, 275 (2000) (Coleman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). That rule is a necessary component of the fortification against the possibility of unfair prejudice when a court determines whether relevant other-crime evidence should be admitted in the trial of an accused. testimonial evidence. In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67, 84, 627 A.2d 106 (1993). STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Respondent. __________________________ VERNIERO, J., concurring. I join the Court's disposition substantially for the reasons expressed in its comprehensive opinion. I write separately to express my view that the adequacy of the jury instruction is a close question, especially when considered under the plain-error standard. The critical language in the charge given in this case is similar to language found in the model charge, and in charges sustained in other cases. See State v. G.S., 145 N.J. 460 (1996); State v. Cusick, 219 N.J. Super. 452 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 109 N.J. 54 (1987). I resolve my doubts in favor of defendant principally because the other-crimes evidence broadly admitted below warranted a particularly forceful instruction to enable the jury to comprehend and appreciate the fine distinction to which it [was] required to adhere. State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328, 341 (1992) (quoting State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 304 (1989)). Additionally, as noted by the majority, the Attorney General acknowledged at oral argument that the jury charge was inadequate. By statute and as recognized in decisional law, the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer and supervises all prosecutors. N.J.S.A. 52:17B-98, -103; Wright v. State, 169 N.J. 422, 451-52 (2001). In this narrow setting, the Attorney General's acknowledgment arguably constitutes a withdrawal of the jury instruction issue from this appeal, notwithstanding the contrary position advanced by the county prosecutor. Under all the circumstances, the Appellate Division's determination in respect of the jury charge should not be disturbed. NO. A-63 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAVID HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED November 21, 2001 Chief Justice Poritz