Opinion ID: 1536009
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reference to Defendant's Sexual Perversion

Text: The prosecutor asked Sergeant O'Dwyer to read portions of defendant's statement to the jury. Defendant argues that the excerpts should have been excluded, as they portrayed him as a pedophile or sexual pervert. Specifically, defendant objects to the elicitation of the following portion: Q: What was your intention of bringing her into the house? A: My intentions were just to feel her up and kiss her and try to get her not to say anything. I didn't want to hurt her physically, but I knew I was hurting her mentally by what I was doing. Q: What do you mean by feel her up? A: Rub my hands up and down her legs and feel her butt. I learned that my main attraction to younger girls was the softness of their skin. .... The statements clearly suggest that defendant was attracted to young girls and acted on those feelings. However harmful to defendant, we find the statements properly were admitted. The prosecution is allowed to vigorously and forcefully present the State's case. Rose, supra, 112 N.J. at 509, 548 A. 2d 1058. Even if the statements were inflammatory, the prosecutor did not mischaracterize the evidence. The statements were defendant's own words and established his motive in committing the crime. Moreover, they were made knowingly and voluntarily. We also reject defendant's argument that the statements improperly referred to uncharged misconduct. The court redacted all inadmissible portions of defendant's statement, i.e., those that referred to his prior convictions. The admitted portions did not specifically inform the jury of defendant's prior crimes and went only to the evidence in this case. Introduction of this relevant evidence was not error.