Court Opinion

ID: 9957338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 14:07:42.360187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:16.799028
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
        This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
     internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-3913-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JORGE L. NAVAHEREDIA,

     Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________

                   Submitted March 20, 2024 – Decided April 4, 2024

                   Before Judges Firko and Vanek.

                   On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior
                   Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Gloucester
                   County, Indictment No. 22-06-0401.

                   Christine A. Hoffman, Gloucester County Prosecutor,
                   attorney for appellant (Alec Joseph Gutierrez, Assistant
                   Prosecutor, on the brief).

                   Law Office of Stephen R. Piper, LLC, attorney for
                   respondent (Stephen Rogers Piper, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      On leave, the State appeals from the July 27, 2023 Law Division order

granting defendant Jorge Navaheredia's motion to dismiss second-degree

burglary—count five—in an eight-count indictment. On appeal, the State claims

there was prima facie evidence presented to the grand jury establishing each

element of the dismissed charge warranting reversal. More specifically, the

State's brief sets forth the following sole argument:

              THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING
              COUNT [FIVE] OF THE INDICTMENT ALLEGING
              SECOND[-]DEGREE BURGLARY.

      After careful consideration of the facts and applicable legal principles, we

reverse the dismissal of the second-degree burglary charge (count five) of the

indictment.

                                        I.

      The record shows that on June 23, 2022, a Gloucester County grand jury

returned indictment number 22-06-0401 charging defendant with third-degree

burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1) (count one); two counts of fourth-degree theft

by unlawful taking, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3(a) (counts two and three); third-degree

burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1) (count four); second-degree burglary, N.J.S.A.

2C:18-2(a)(1) (count five); fourth-degree criminal trespass, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3(a)

                                                                            A-3913-22
                                        2
(counts six and eight); and third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3(a) (count

seven).

        At the grand jury hearing, the State presented testimony from Corporal

Andrew Roberts and Detective Dante Laspata. Corporal Roberts testified about

the events that occurred on March 9, 2022. The victim, A.M., 1 called 9-1-1 and

reported to the dispatcher that a man, later identified as defendant, was inside

the victim's residence, a sorority house, eating her food. A.M. reported to the

investigating officers that at approximately 4:26 a.m., "she awoke to an

unknown male touching her feet" while it "appeared" defendant "was touching

his intimate parts."

        Corporal Roberts testified that A.M. stated she sat up in bed and

"confronted the male," which "startled" him. Approximately thirty minutes

later, A.M. heard a noise coming from the kitchen, investigated, and observed

defendant "flee the kitchen out the side door." Corporal Roberts explained a

review of the house surveillance video revealed that a male "left the house

through the kitchen door and ran south." Corporal Roberts testified that he

showed the surveillance video to the other residents in the sorority house, but

1
    We use initials to protect the identity of the victims.
                                                                          A-3913-22
                                           3
no one recognized the person in the video.           Several residents confirmed

defendant "shouldn't have been there."

      Corporal Roberts testified that A.M.'s landlord reviewed "additional

surveillance video," which revealed defendant left the house after A.M.

confronted him and "returned minutes later."           Corporal Roberts further

explained that defendant took A.M.'s car keys, went into her car, stole $300 in

cash, and a pair of Nike sneakers.           Corporal Roberts stated that A.M.'s

roommate, S.R., reported to him that she was missing $340 in cash from her

pocketbook, which had been in her bedroom.

      According to Corporal Roberts, a witness, D.W., lived two houses away

from the victims' residence. Corporal Roberts testified that D.W. reviewed the

surveillance video and recognized defendant as a male he encountered earlier

that day at a bar in Glassboro. D.W. reported to the police that he believed

defendant was an Uber driver who had picked him up in a white car and taken

D.W. to his house. D.W. told Roberts that defendant "offered him beer from his

trunk."

      Corporal Roberts testified that D.W. told him that he and defendant

"entered a neighboring residence to socialize," and the white vehicle was

registered to defendant's wife.   Given this information, Corporal Roberts

                                                                          A-3913-22
                                         4
testified the police contacted A.M. and S.R., who both reported that they

received friend requests from an Instagram account titled "Jorge_Iuisnava,"

which matched a photograph of defendant. A.M. and S.R. were advised to deny

the friend request from defendant and to block any further communication from

that account.

      Detective Laspata testified that on March 19, 2022, at approximately 6:27

a.m., he was dispatched to a second residence—a single family house rented to

college students—in Glassboro for a report of a burglary in progress. Detective

Laspata stated the female residents were inside their room and heard "somebody

moving about the house." One resident "saw a figure standing there in the

doorway." When the police arrived, Detective Laspata testified they found

defendant hiding in a cabinet under the kitchen sink with multiple pairs of

female undergarments.

      Detective Laspata explained defendant was placed under arrest. His white

vehicle was also found on the scene. Detective Laspata testified the police

looked inside the vehicle from the outside and observed female undergarments

and mail from the second residence. In a court authorized search of defendant's

vehicle, police found additional female garments, defendant's identification, and

a poster taken from the sorority house.

                                                                           A-3913-22
                                          5
      Following the testimony that day, the grand jury returned indictment

number 22-06-0401 charging defendant as stated. Defendant challenged the

insufficiency, inadequacy, and incompetency of the evidence supporting the

second-degree burglary charge in count five. The State opposed the motion

contending the indictment was palpably sufficient, all essential elements of the

offense were established by the evidence, and the rational inferences drawn from

that evidence were to be viewed in the light most favorable to the State.

      On July 19, 2023, the motion judge conducted oral argument on

defendant's motion. Following argument that day, the motion judge rendered an

oral opinion and granted the motion. The motion judge found count five should

be dismissed because defendant did not inflict an injury upon A.M. and there

was no evidence she suffered physical illness, or impairment of physical

condition, pain, as defined by the assault statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1(a). The

motion judge also held that the State failed to present any evidence that

defendant purposely attempted to inflict bodily injury on A.M.

      In addition, because the State did not present evidence to the grand jury

that A.M. was slapped, kicked, hit, or put into a headlock in order to satisfy the

definition of bodily injury set forth in the assault statute and case law, the motion

judge determined there was insufficient proof that defendant intentionally

                                                                              A-3913-22
                                         6
inflicted bodily injury upon A.M. or attempted to commit an assault upon her as

part of the commission of the burglary, warranting dismissal of count five. The

motion judge found that defendant's touching or "tickling" A.M.'s foot did not

constitute a bodily injury.

      In regard to the issue of whether defendant attempted to inflict bodily

injury on A.M., the motion judge declined to speculate as to what defendant's

state of mind was under the circumstances and ruled the State had not shown

"defendant's conscious object was to engage in conduct to inflict bodily injury

or engage in conduct designed to cause bodily injury." A memorializing order

was entered. We then granted the State's motion for leave to appeal.

                                       II.

      A "grand jury must be presented with sufficient evidence to justify the

issuance of an indictment. The absence of any evidence to support the charges

would render the indictment 'palpably defective' and subject to dismissal." State

v. Morrison, 188 N.J. 2, 12 (2006) (citing State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 228-29

(1996)). However, "[a]t the grand jury stage, the State is not required to present

enough evidence to sustain a conviction." State v. Feliciano, 224 N.J. 351, 380

(2016) (citing State v. N.J. Trade Waste Ass'n, 96 N.J. 8, 27 (1984)).

                                                                            A-3913-22
                                        7
      The prosecutor need only present "some evidence establishing each

element of the crime to make out a prima facie case." Morrison, 188 N.J. at 12.

"The quantum of this evidence . . . need not be great." State v. Schenkolewski,

301 N.J. Super. 115, 137 (App. Div. 1997) (citing State v. Bennett, 194 N.J.

Super. 231, 234 (App. Div. 1984)). Our Supreme Court has explained, "[t]he

grand jury 'is an accusative rather than an adjudicative body,' whose task is to

assess whether there is an adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge.'" State

v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39, 56 (2015) (quoting Hogan, 144 N.J. at 229-30).

      "[I]n reviewing the grand jury record on a motion to dismiss an

indictment, the trial court should use a standard similar to that applicable in a

motion for a judgment of acquittal at trial" under Rule 3:18-1. Morrison, 188

N.J. at 13. "The court should evaluate whether, viewing the evidence and the

rational inferences drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the

State, a grand jury could reasonably believe that a crime occurred, and that the

defendant committed it." Ibid. "An indictment is presumed valid and should be

disturbed only on the 'clearest and plainest ground.'" State v. Perry, 124 N.J.

128, 168-69 (1991) (quoting N.J. Trade Waste Ass'n, 96 N.J. at 18-19).

      Ultimately, the decision whether to dismiss an indictment lies within the

discretion of the trial court, and that exercise of discretionary authority

                                                                           A-3913-22
                                       8
ordinarily will not be reversed on appeal unless it appears that the exercise of

discretion was mistaken. State v. Bell, 241 N.J. 552, 561 (2020) (citations

omitted). "When the decision to dismiss relies on a purely legal question,

however, we review that determination de novo." State v. Twiggs, 233 N.J. 513,

532 (2018). We must ensure the trial court employed the correct legal standard

in dismissing the indictment. State v. Abbati, 99 N.J. 418, 436 (1985).

                                       III.

      Count five of the indictment charged defendant with burglary in the

second degree pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(a)(1), which establishes that "a

person is guilty of burglary if, with purpose to commit an offense therein," that

person enters a structure without license or privilege to do so. N.J.S.A. 2C:18 -

2(a)(1). "Burglary is a crime of the second degree if in the course of committing

the offense, the actor purposely, knowingly, or recklessly inflicted, attempted to

inflict, or threatened to inflict bodily injury on anyone." N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(b)(1).

      The Code defines "bodily injury" as "physical pain, illness or any

impairment of physical condition." N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1(a). Not much is required

to show bodily injury; the stinging sensation caused by a slap, for example, is

adequate. State v. Stull, 403 N.J. Super. 501, 505 (App. Div. 2008). Courts

have also found bodily injury when someone experienced physical discomfort

                                                                             A-3913-22
                                        9
from a kick, State in the Int. of S.B., 333 N.J. Super. 236, 243-44 (App. Div.

2000); when someone experienced pain from being hit repeatedly; State in the

Int. of T.S., 413 N.J. Super. 540, 542-43 (App. Div. 2010); and when someone

was put into a headlock, Stull, 403 N.J. Super. at 507. 2 "[P]hysical discomfort,

or a sensation caused by a kick during a physical confrontation, as well as pain,

as that word is commonly understood, is sufficient to constitute bodily injury

for purposes of a prosecution . . . ." S.B., 333 N.J. Super. at 244.

      Bodily injury is not required to sustain a conviction of burglary in the

second degree because inclusive in the statute is an attempt to cause bodily

injury.   "A person is guilty of an attempt to inflict bodily injury if he/she

purposely commits an act which constitutes a substantial step toward the

commission of the infliction of bodily injury." Model Jury Charges (Criminal),

"Burglary in the Second Degree (N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2(b))" (rev. Mar. 14, 2016).

      The State argues the second-degree burglary charge (count five) is

supported by the evidence presented to the grand jury. In support of this

argument, the State asserts the unwanted touching of a stranger's feet—A.M.—

2
  Some of these cases involve simple assault; however, the infliction of bodily
injury elements of second-degree burglary charged in the indictment are
identical to the elements required to prove simple assault. See State v. Thomas,
187 N.J. 119, 129 (2006).
                                                                           A-3913-22
                                       10
while trespassing in her private residence in the middle of the night , combined

with defendant simultaneously touching his own intimate parts, satisfies the

element of bodily injury defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1(a).

      The State claims the rational inference to be drawn from the grand jury

testimony is that defendant attempted to inflict bodily injury upon A.M., which

is defined as a localized or generalized unpleasant bodily sensation or

combination of sensations that causes mild to severe physical discomfort and

emotional distress. In the State's view, A.M.'s interpretation or understanding

of what was happening at the moment is important, but it is defendant's purpose

that prevails. We agree.

      Given that the State receives the benefit of the reasonable inference, we

conclude the evidence presented to the grand jury supports a reasonable

inference defendant attempted to inflict bodily injury on A.M. The evidence

shows defendant entered A.M.'s sorority house without license or permission.

Soon after, he entered A.M.'s room where she was sleeping. A.M. reported to

the police that she then awoke to an unknown male touching her feet while

simultaneously touching his intimate parts.

      These facts support the reasonable inference defendant's actions

constituted a substantial step toward the commission of the infliction of bodily

                                                                          A-3913-22
                                      11
injury.   Thus, we are satisfied the State presented at least some evidence

defendant attempted and even intended to inflict bodily injury on A.M.,

beginning with the touching of her feet while touching his intimate parts.

      Because a rational inference exists that defendant intended or attempted

to injure A.M., when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, a reversal of

the dismissal order and remand of the second-degree burglary charge in count

five is warranted. To the extent we have not considered any other arguments

raised by the State, we conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

      Reversed and remanded for the restatement of count five of the

indictment. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                             A-3913-22
                                      12