Opinion ID: 2265144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Inclusion of Threats by Defendant Toward Mrs. Flax in Recording of Telephone Conversation

Text: At trial, the State moved into evidence the tape of the telephone conversation between defendant and Marilyn Flax. That conversation had been taped on January 23, 1989, the day of the kidnapping. In the conversation defendant repeated his demand for ransom for the safe return of her husband and arranged for the delivery of the money. A transcript of the conversation was given to the jurors, who also listened to an audiotape of the conversation. Prior to trial, defendant moved to excise the portions of the conversation from the transcript and tape in which he had threatened the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Flax, stating that he would have them killed by a third party if the police were notified. Defendant identified himself as Tony. [Martini:] I have to emphasize this. When I pick up that money  [Mrs. Flax:]  What? [Martini:] And I leave. [Mrs. Flax:] Yeah. [Martini:] Okay. [Mrs. Flax:] Yeah. [Martini:] I will release your husband [Mrs. Flax:] Right. [Martini:] But I'm going to tell you right now. [Mrs. Flax:] Yeah. [Martini:] If there are people watching me pick up that money  [Mrs. Flax:]  Tony  [Martini:]  I'm going to tell you right now. [Mrs. Flax:] What? ([Martini:] I'm going to tell you right now. You let the police pick me up even later, I'm going to tell you now, someone else will come, maybe in two days, kill the two of ya's. [1] [Mrs. Flax:] Tony  [Martini:]  I'm telling you right now. [Mrs. Flax:] I told you I'm not calling the cops. You told me it was just you, now you have a whole  [Martini:] I'll have somebody take care of you. I can't  I can't take a chance that you're going to do this to me. ) [Mrs. Flax:] All right. So I'll see you at 7:30. All right. [Martini:] 7:30 back of the Forum. [Mrs. Flax:] Dark jacket, the back of the Forum, in Paramus, and you'll wave to me. The portion in parenthesis, commencing with the underlined word Martini and concluding with the underlined word me, is the specific portion of the tape defendant requested be excised. Defendant contends that the admission of the unredacted transcript violated his federal and state rights to due process and a fair trial. At pretrial, defendant argued that the threat against Mrs. Flax amounted to an incident of uncharged misconduct that was too prejudicial to be admitted into evidence. The State took the position that the threat was admissible either under Evidence Rule 55 as evidence of defendant's intent and    state of mind or independently as part of the res gestae  a component of the kidnapping for which defendant was standing trial. The trial court ruled in favor of the State, although it is unclear which argument it adopted: That will remain. It's not an admission or evidence of a crime that this defendant may have committed. It's part of the res gestae. It goes to show his motive, his intent and will remain. Defendant now contends that the trial court improperly admitted the evidence under Rule 55 as proof of defendant's motive and intent. Defendant also argues that even if the evidence was properly admitted under Rule 55, its potential for prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value. Hence, he contends that the evidence was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 4. In addition, defendant argues that the evidence should have been accompanied by a limiting instruction. The State repeats its argument that the threat was admitted as part of the res gestae, thereby making the Rule 4 weighing process and any limiting instructions unnecessary. We agree with the State. As evidenced by the statements that defendant made immediately preceding and following the disputed language, the threats defendant made to Mrs. Flax were part and parcel of the crimes for which he was standing trial. As such, Rule 55 was inapplicable and the evidentiary admission was entirely proper. Rule 55 states: Subject to Rule 47, evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that he committed a crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but, subject to Rule 48, such evidence is admissible to prove some other fact in issue including motive, intent, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. (Emphasis added). The Rule prohibits the introduction of evidence of past acts of misconduct as a basis for an inference that defendant committed the acts for which he or she is then standing trial. State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289, 299-300, 558 A. 2d 833 (1989). The purpose of the Rule is `to protect defendants from the potentially great prejudice inherent in `other like crimes' evidence, since the average jury will much more readily accept the belief that one is guilty of the crime charged where it is demonstrated that he has committed a similar crime.' State v. Ortiz, 253 N.J. Super. 239, 242-43, 601 A. 2d 735 (App.Div.) (quoting State v. Peltack, 172 N.J. Super. 287, 292, 411 A. 2d 1156 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 84 N.J. 474, 475, 420 A. 2d 1298 (1980)), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 6, 611 A. 2d 646 (1992). However, the Rule does not apply to uncharged acts of misconduct that are components of the crime that is the subject of the trial. Conduct which is the subject matter of the action being tried cannot be excluded under Rule 55 because the rule is only a consideration with respect to conduct that occurred on other occasions. Richard J. Biunno, Current N.J.Rules of Evidence, Comment 1 to Evid.R. 55, p. 532. For example, in State v. Sease, 138 N.J. Super. 80, 350 A. 2d 262 (App.Div. 1975), the defendant was charged with participating in the armed robbery of six tavern patrons, all of whom were named in the indictment. At trial, the State introduced evidence that the defendant had also reached into the pocket of another patron at the tavern who had not been named in the indictment. Id. at 85, 350 A. 2d 262. Defendant protested, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible as it related to misconduct for which she had not been charged. Finding that the evidence was part of the total criminal event on the same occasion as the crimes charged, the Appellate Division approved of its admission. Ibid.; see also State v. Sinnott, 24 N.J. 408, 413, 132 A. 2d 298 (1957) (defendant's declarations and acts are admissible when they are part of the res gestae ). The same reasoning applies to the threats made by Martini against Mrs. Flax. Count four of the indictment charged defendant with kidnapping contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1a. That provision states that [a] person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another from the place where he is found or if he unlawfully confines another with the purpose of holding that person for ransom or reward   . The State's theory of the case was that defendant had intended to ensure receipt of his ransom as well as his escape from detection through threats on the lives of both Irving Flax and his wife. The contested passage, as part of a conversation in which defendant demanded to know if the ransom had been assembled, supports that theory. Defendant's threats were made to coerce Mrs. Flax into providing the ransom without police interference. This is not a case in which the State deliberately informed the jury of past criminal acts committed by defendant. See State v. Pennington, supra, 119 N.J. at 571, 575 A. 2d 816. Instead, the disputed evidence relates directly to the crimes for which defendant was then standing trial and its admission serves to paint a complete picture of the relevant criminal transaction. See United States v. Masters, 622 F. 2d 83, 86 (4th Cir.1980) (holding other-acts evidence admissible if it `furnishes part of the context of the crime' or is necessary to a `full presentation' of the case   .). A defendant may not break apart each component of a criminal act that itself could constitute an offense and prevent it from being admitted at trial. Defendant was not independently charged with stealing Flax's car, but to say that the State could not show that he had driven it to the Forum Diner to pick up his ransom would be ridiculous. The same is true of his threats against Mrs. Flax. Insofar as the evidence related to the res gestae, no limiting instruction was necessary. Admission of the evidence was proper.