Court Opinion

ID: 9863445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 05:21:09.421879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:53:53.288128
License: Public Domain

Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
To the extent the majority concludes that the admission of the challenged evidence was proper under N.J.R.E. 404(b), and there*185fore affirms defendant’s conviction, I concur. However, to the extent the majority takes the added, unnecessary step of jettisoning the doctrine of res gestae from our jurisprudence, I dissent on two separate grounds: the majority’s discussion is plain dicta, deserving of no jurisprudential value; and the majority’s reasoning and conclusions are ill-conceived and simply in error.
I.
As the majority well recognizes, this appeal was fully and completely decided once it concluded that “the evidence in issue would have been admissible under Rule 404(b)[,]” that “defendant suffered no error, let alone reversible error, as a result of the admission of the evidence[,]” and that, as a result, “we affirm as modified, the judgment of the Appellate Division.” Ante at 167,19 A.3d at 1001. Nevertheless, the majority creates a straw man and then proceeds to knock it down when it asserts that “[t]he various positions taken by counsel, the trial court, and the Appellate Division ... demonstrate that there exists confusion and uncertainty about the use of the common law doctrine of res gestae, and its very status as a viable feature of New Jersey’s evidence jurisprudence.” Ibid.
That justification for addressing and ultimately discarding, in the context of this appeal, the continued viability of the doctrine of res gestae lays bare the true nature of the majority’s pronouncements on the issue: they are nothing more than “dicta, ‘that is, something that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential.]’ ” State v. McLaughlin, 205 N.J. 185, 200 n. 10 (2011) (quoting Dean v. Barrett Homes, Inc., 204 N.J. 286, 307, 8 A.3d 766 (2010) (Rivera-Soto, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). For that reason, the majority’s declaration to “end the practice of invoking ‘res gestae’ as an explanation for the admission of evidence, in circumvention of the application of the formal Rules of Evidence [,]” ante at 182, 19 A.3d at 1011, is categorically and without doubt unnecessary to the outcome of this appeal. It *186is blunt force dicta—plain and simple—and, as such, it should be disregarded in its entirety.
II.
Furthermore, the majority incorrectly conflates—and thereby improperly confuses—two separate and distinct concepts well grounded in evidence law: the admissibility of other bad act evidence under N.J.R.E. 404(b), and the admission of evidence of res gestae. In the established law of evidence, those notions represent, instead, independent principles, each of which is worthy of its own, stand-alone dignity.
By its explicit terms, Evidence Rule 404 proscribes the admission of “[ejvidence of a person’s character or character trait, including a trait of care or skill or lack thereof, ... for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion[.]” N.J.R.E. 404(a). As this Court made clear in Johnson v. Dobrosky,
evidence of a person’s character or a trait thereof is not admissible when it is not an element of a claim or defense. Admissibility thus depends upon the connection between proffered character evidence and a claim or defense that is actually in issue. That limitation reflects the danger inherent in the introduction of such evidence—its susceptibility to convert a trial of the issue to a judgment of the person. Thus, for character evidence to be admissible ... a person’s character or a trait of his character must be related to a specific claim or defense in the case.
[187 N.J. 594, 604, 902 A.2d 238 (2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).]
More to the point, although N.J.R.E. 404(b) repeats the general proposition that “[ejxeept as otherwise provided ... evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the disposition of a person in order to show that such person acted in conformity therewith[,]” that Rule additionally provides that “[s]uch evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue in dispute.”
Res gestae, in contrast, focuses on a fundamentally different concern. As commentators on our Rules of Evidence aptly have *187noted, “[c]onduet which is the subject matter of the action being tried cannot be excluded under N.J.R.E. 404(b) because the rule is only a consideration with respect to conduct that occurred on other occasions.” Biunno, Weisbard & Zegas, New Jersey Rules of Evidence, Comment 7 to N.J.R.E. 404, at 194 (2011) (emphasis supplied). In straightforward terms, then, res gestae “literally means ‘things done,’ and under the res gestae doctrine a contemporaneous statement involving events surrounding a disputed issue [i]s admissible.” State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338, 358, 865 A.2d 673 (2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). That principle long has been an integral part of New Jersey’s evidence jurisprudence, and most clearly so since one of the earliest cases decided by this Court once its composition was altered under the 1947 Constitution. Thus, in Robertson v. Hackensack Trust Co., this Court proclaimed clearly that
the admissibility of the proofs as res gestae has as its justifying principle that truth, like the Master’s robe, is of one piece, without seam, woven from the top throughout, that each fact has its inseparable attributes and its kindred facts materially affecting its character, and that the reproduction of a scene with its multiple incidents, each created naturally and without artificiality and not too distant in point of time, will by very quality and texture tend to disclose the truth.
[1 N.J. 304, 312, 63 A.2d 515 (1949).]
Until today, this Court has recognized and honored that difference, and unfailingly has drawn a distinction between res gestae and the proscription against prior bad acts codified in N.J.R.E. 404(b). In so doing, it has emphasized that
“Lt]he rule ... is that where the declaration is concomitant with the main fact under consideration and is so connected with it as to illustrate its character, it may be proved as part of the res gestae; but, where it is merely narrative of a past occurrence, it cannot be received as proof of the character of that occurrence.”
[State v. Long, 173 N.J. 138, 155, 801 A.2d 221 (2002) (quoting Blackman v. W. Jersey & Seashore R.R. Co., 68 N.J.L. 1, 2, 52 A. 370 (Sup.Ct.1902)).]
The clear salutary effects generated by the prohibition against proof of prior bad acts, on the one hand, and the res gestae doctrine, on the other, more than amply counsel that this Court should continue to consider them separately for a bedrock reason; while res gestae focuses on the statement, act or omission to speak or act as an integral part of the matter directly at issue, N.J.R.E. *188404(b) addresses an offer of proof of statements or acts occurring separate and apart from the matter at issue but offered to prove a fact relevant to the matter at issue, something far different than proof of the matter itself. Therefore, to “disapprove of the further use of res gestae to support evidential rulings [purportedly because] invocations of res gestae as the basis for the admission of evidence ... lack the analytic rigor, precision, and uniformity that evidential rulings were intended to have under the codified Evidence Rules [,]” ante at 182, 19 A.3d at 1011, as the majority gratuitously has done here, is plainly incorrect and ignores the different focuses and purposes of the two evidentiary rules.
Moreover, in light of the foregoing, it is ironic that, while explicitly discarding the well recognized res gestae doctrine, the majority implicitly preserves its substance by embracing the admissibility of evidence that is “intrinsic to the crime charged.” Ante at 179-82, 19 A.3d at 1009-11. By so doing, the majority runs afoul of the Shakespearean injunction: ‘What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, act 2, se. II. In short, evidence “intrinsic to the crime charged” is res gestae evidence, no matter what moniker it is given.
Because I cannot join in the wholesale and needless abandonment of a time-honored doctrine for what are less-than-convincing reasons, I dissent.
III.
I add only the following. Relying on secondary, nonprecedential sources, ante at 182-84, 19 A.3d at 1011-12,1 the majority *189seeks to dismiss the concerns raised here by engaging in little more than circular reasoning. According to the majority, what it says in respect of unceremoniously burying the doctrine of res gestae is not dicta for a simple, overbearing reason: because it says so.
The notion that a court of appeals willy-nilly can decide issues unnecessary to the outcome of the case results in the wholesale issuance of advisory opinions, a practice our judicial decision-making system categorically rejects. See Abbott v. Burke, 196 N.J. 544, 551, 960 A.2d 360 (2008) (“We cannot give an advisory opinion[.]”). It is a cornerstone of our decisional authority that “[w]e cannot answer abstract questions or give advisory opinions.” G.H. v. Twp. of Galloway, 199 N.J. 135, 136, 971 A.2d 401 (2009) (citing Crescent Park Tenants Ass’n v. Realty Eq. Corp. of N.Y., 58 N.J. 98, 107, 275 A.2d 433 (1971); N.J. Tpk. Auth. v. Parsons, 3 N.J. 235, 240, 69 A.2d 875 (1949)).2 This Court, in G.H., stated the rationale undergirding the governing rule clearly: “The judicial *190function operates best when a concrete dispute is presented to the
courts.” Ibid.; see also Grand Union Co. v. Sills, 43 N.J. 390, 410, 204 A.2d 853 (1964) (noting “wholesome policy considerations which confine courts to actual controversies and dissuade them from rendering abstract or advisory opinions” (citing Proprietary Ass’n v. Bd. of Pharmacy, 16 N.J. 62, 72, 106 A.2d 272 (1954))).
The “concrete dispute” presented in this appeal is answered fully, completely and conclusively by resort to the Rules of Evidence, the conclusion the majority first advances and with which I concur. Anything further is unnecessary to that outcome and, in the exercise of restraint, should be rejected. In sum, if the res gestae doctrine is to be condemned, it should be when the doctrine itself is the issue on appeal, and not some collateral appendage to an opinion that stands squarely on its own without overreaching for a seemingly desired but plainly unnecessary result.
For affirmance as modified—Chief Justice RABNER and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, RIVERA-SOTO, HOENS and STERN (temporarily assigned)—7.
For concurrence in part; dissent in part—Justices RIVERA-SOTO and HOENS—2.

 To the extent the majority cites to any decisional authority, it is to that of lower courts rationalizing why they must abide by the dicta issued by their respective courts of last resort. None of those cases addressed the question presented here: whether it is jurisprudentially sound for a court—particularly a court of last resort—to decide a case on narrow grounds and then volunteer a sweeping holding not necessary to the outcome. Although most often discussed and applied in respect of constitutional questions, see, e.g„ Committee to Recall *189Robert Menendez from the Office of United States Senator v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 141-42, 7 A.3d 720 (2010) (Hoens, J., dissenting) (stating that "our jurisprudence is replete with instances where we have insisted that we do not address constitutional issues when a narrower, non-constitutional result is available” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted; citing cases)); State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386, 945 A.2d 26 (2008) (quoting Bell v. Twp. of Stafford, 110 N.J. 384, 389, 541 A.2d 692 (1988), for proposition that "court should not reach constitutional issues unless absolutely imperative to dispose of the litigation”), it is an equally appropriate observation here. And, to the extent a discrete minority of "sister courts” have chosen to jump off this particular cliff, this Court should far more humbly choose not to join them.

 See also State v. Harvey, 176 N.J. 522, 528, 826 A.2d 597 (2003) (quoting State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456, 464, 694 A.2d 564 (1997) and observing that " 'this Court will not render advisory opinions or exercise its jurisdiction in the abstract' ”); In re Camden County, 170 N.J. 439, 448-49, 790 A.2d 158 (2002) (quoting Crescent Park Tenants Ass’n, supra, 58 N.J. at 107-08, 275 A.2d 433, for proposition that “ ‘[ujnlike the Federal Constitution, there is no express language in New Jersey's Constitution [confining] our judicial power to actual cases and controversies. Nevertheless, we will not render advisory opinions or function in the abstract' ”).