Court Opinion

ID: 9908633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-11 15:05:42.51086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:22.015181
License: Public Domain

RECORD IMPOUNDED

                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2237-22

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

          Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GEORGE J. SAPPAH and
GRETA J. SAPPAH,

     Defendants-Respondents.
__________________________

                   Argued October 24, 2023 – Decided December 11, 2023

                   Before Judges Natali and Puglisi.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
                   Division, Warren County, Indictment No. 21-02-0037.

                   Anthony James Robinson, First Assistant Prosecutor,
                   argued the cause for appellant (James L. Pfeiffer,
                   Warren County Prosecutor, attorney; Anthony James
                   Robinson, of counsel and on the briefs).

                   Anthony Joseph Iacullo argued the cause for
                   respondent George J. Sappah (Iacullo Martino &
                   Reinitz, LLC, attorneys; Anthony Joseph Iacullo and
                   Joshua H. Reinitz, of counsel and on the joint brief).
            Thomas Paul Fischer argued the cause for respondent
            Greta J. Sappah (Broscious, Fischer & Zaiter, PC,
            attorneys; Thomas Paul Fischer, of counsel and on the
            joint brief).

            Matthew Stephen Adams argued the cause for amicus
            curiae the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of
            New Jersey (Fox Rothschild LLP, attorneys; Matthew
            Stephen Adams, Marissa Koblitz Kingman, and Daniel
            B. Cohen, on the brief).

            Richard D. Pompelio argued the cause for amicus
            curiae New Jersey Crime Victims' Law Center (New
            Jersey Crime Victims' Law Center, attorneys; Richard
            D. Pompelio and Dyanne Veloz Lluch, of counsel and
            on the brief).

PER CURIAM

      The State appeals from the trial court's March 13, 2023 orders granting a

motion for mistrial and dismissing the indictment with prejudice against

defendants George J. Sappah and Greta J. Sappah. Although we affirm the

court's order for mistrial, we reverse the dismissal of the indictment and remand

for further proceedings.

                                       I.

      On February 18, 2021, a Warren County grand jury returned an indictment

charging George 1 with two counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault,

1
   Because this case involves two co-defendants with the same last name and
initials, we identify defendants by their first names. No disrespect is intended.
                                                                           A-2237-22
                                       2
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1); two counts of third-degree endangering the welfare of a

child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1); second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-

2(b); and second-degree prostitution, N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1(b)(7); and charging

Greta with first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1);

second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b); second-degree endangering

the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(1); second-degree endangering the

welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a)(2); and first-degree prostitution,

N.J.S.A. 2C:34-1(b)(4).

        During the relevant time period in the indictment, I.M.2 was eleven years

old and lived with other family members in Greta's house, where it is alleged

she and George sexually assaulted I.M. on more than one occasion. George is

I.M.'s great-uncle and Greta is I.M.'s grandmother.

        The first assistant county prosecutor represented the State during the jury

trial. Defendants' theory of the case, as submitted to the jury during their

opening statements, was that I.M. fabricated the assaults and her testimony was

uncorroborated.

        I.M. testified that the assaults all occurred in a similar manner. Greta went

to I.M.'s bedroom upstairs and called her name from the door. I.M. "kn[e]w

2
    Initials are used to protect the privacy of the child. R. 1:38-3(c)(12).
                                                                               A-2237-22
                                          3
what [she] ha[d] to do," and followed Greta into her bedroom downstairs, where

George waited. Defendants closed the door, told I.M. to "shut up" and George

took off I.M.'s pants. George then took off his clothes and put his penis inside

I.M.'s vagina and mouth.

      During the assaults, defendants threatened to hurt I.M.'s family if she said

anything. Greta stood in the room and "constantly t[old] [I.M. she's] . . . ugly

and . . . fat and [she] wasn't worth anything." Greta pointed a gun at I.M. and

hit her head and arms with it. Defendants also used a "horse whip" to hit I.M.'s

arms and legs. I.M. referred to another weapon used during the assault as "this

thing that they sometimes shot me with" that would make her "fall back to

sleep."

      In presenting its case for the prostitution charges, the State elicited

testimony from I.M. that after the assaults, George gave Greta money in

envelopes she kept in her bedroom dresser and car, and that I.M. saw the

envelopes of money in those locations. After the conclusion of I.M.'s testimony,

the State called I.M.'s mother, A.M., who testified she also saw white envelopes

filled with cash in Greta's car. A.M. testified Greta told her she had taken the

cash out of her home equity line of credit.

                                                                            A-2237-22
                                        4
      Following A.M.'s testimony, defendants requested a sidebar and alerted

the court they were not aware of A.M.'s testimony about the envelopes and home

equity line of credit, details not contained in her earlier statement to law

enforcement.     The first assistant acknowledged he learned of the new

information the previous night, when he conducted a more "comprehensive

witness-preparatory conversation" by phone, without an investigator on the call.

Although the new information proffered by A.M. was not previously known to

defendants, the first assistant did not provide an updated report of the new

information nor did he alert either defense counsel of his conversation with A.M.

prior to her testimony. Accordingly, defendants moved for a mistrial.

      After considering argument outside the presence of the jury, the court

determined the State had committed a discovery violation under Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The court found "the State elicited testimony

regarding envelopes filled with cash, even confirming the victim's testimony

about the glove compartment, information that was never contained in any

earlier statement." Noting A.M.'s disclosure of the envelopes occurred for the

first time "on the eve of trial," the court continued:

            [M]uch like in the last Sappah trial less than three
            months ago, the State made a conscious decision not to
            disclose this new information, calling it tangentially

                                                                           A-2237-22
                                         5
            corroborative. 3 The State made this decision despite
            knowing that the defendant's theory of the case was
            . . . there was nothing corroborating the victim's story.

                  ....

            [T]here could be no doubt that the evidence was
            purposely not disclosed, rather suppressed, for the sole
            purpose of presenting corroborative testimony which
            was directly relevant to an element of the prostitution
            charges, specifically, but also clearly bolstering the
            credibility of the victim.

The trial court concluded the State had committed a Brady violation:

            One, the information is favorable to the accused in the
            form of impeachment evidence; two, it was clearly
            purposely suppressed; three, material to defendant's
            case, it directly affects the victim's credibility,
            specifically related to the element of the crime. It
            clearly also had a negative effect on the defendant's trial
            preparation, their opening statements and their
            examination of witnesses by not knowing this prior to
            beginning trial.

      The court next determined the appropriate remedy. The State requested

the court provide a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the prior

undisclosed testimony or, in the alternative, dismiss the prostitution charges.

The defendants requested a mistrial and dismissal of all charges with prejudice.

3
  The same judge presided over a prior trial against George, which involved a
different victim and charges, wherein the same first assistant prosecutor
withheld evidence in the same fashion, resulting in a mistrial.
                                                                          A-2237-22
                                        6
The court dismissed the entire indictment with prejudice as to both defendants,

reasoning "in the context of a Brady violation, the remedy of dismissal of an

indictment with prejudice is utilized when the conduct of law enforcement

agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the

government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction." The court

found it was the State's "tactical decision to give [it] an advantage to tip the

scales of justice in the State's favor in a case that solely relies on the credibility

and believability of the sole witness with direct knowledge of anything that may

have occurred." The court further stated the first assistant prosecutor should

have known that "knowingly failing to disclose new information discovered on

the eve of trial to defense could only foster [a mistrial]."

      Although the court did not take into account the nature of the charges and

the harm to the victim if they were dismissed, it considered defendants' interests:

             [I]f the court granted a mistrial without prejudice, it
             would serve a manifest injustice to at least George
             Sappah, who would have to prepare now for a third and
             fourth trial due to the State's violation and through no
             fault of his own because all of the charges stem from
             the same conduct for both defendants.

      This appeal follows.

                                         II.

      The State raises the following issues for our consideration:

                                                                                A-2237-22
                                          7
            POINT I

            MISTRIALS ARE DISFAVORED BY THE LAW
            AND THE TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION TO
            DECLARE A MISTRIAL WAS IMPROPERLY
            EXERCISED BECAUSE AN APPROPRIATE,
            ALTERNATIVE REMEDY EXISTED.

            POINT II

            THE STATE DID NOT DELIBERATELY PROVOKE
            DEFENDANT'S MISTRIAL MOTION.

      We begin our analysis with the standard of review applicable to decisions

within the trial court's discretion.   "A court abuses its discretion when its

'decision is made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from

established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'" State v. Chavies, 247

N.J. 245, 257 (2021) (quoting State v. R.Y., 242 N.J. 48, 65 (2020)). After

examining a trial court's exercise of discretionary authority, an appellate court

will reverse only if the "exercise of discretion was 'manifestly unjust' under the

circumstances." Newark Morning Ledger Co. v. N.J. Sports & Exposition Auth.,

423 N.J. Super. 140, 174 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Union Cnty. Improvement

Auth. v. Artaki, LLC, 392 N.J. Super. 141, 149 (App. Div. 2007)).

      "A trial court's interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that

flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference." Rowe v.

                                                                            A-2237-22
                                        8
Bell & Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531, 552 (2019) (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P.

v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

      A trial court's determination as to whether evidence is subject to

disclosure under Brady presents a mixed question of law and fact. State v.

Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 185 (1997).       For mixed questions of law and fact,

appellate courts give deference to the trial court's supported factual findings, but

review de novo the court's application of legal rules to the factual findings. State

v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560, 577 (2015).

      We first address whether the court erred in determining that the State's

failure to provide defendants an updated report of A.M.'s changed statement

constituted a Brady violation. A Brady violation occurs when: (1) the evidence

at issue was favorable to the accused, either as exculpatory or impeachment

evidence; (2) the State either purposely or inadvertently suppressed the

evidence; and (3) the evidence was material to the defendant's case. State v.

Brown, 236 N.J. 497, 518 (2019).

      In deciding materiality, the court must "examine the circumstances under

which the nondisclosure arose" and "[t]he significance of a nondisclosure in the

context of the entire record." State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 199-200 (1991).

Determining the effect of the withheld evidence in the context of the entire

                                                                              A-2237-22
                                         9
record requires the court to "consider the strength of the State's case, the timing

of disclosure of the withheld evidence, the relevance of the suppressed evidence,

and the withheld evidence's admissibility." Brown, 236 N.J. at 519. Evidence

is material if there is a "reasonable probability" that timely production of the

withheld evidence would have led to a different result at trial. United States v.

Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985).

      Here, there can be no doubt the first assistant's withholding of the new

information constituted a Brady violation. First, A.M.'s statement, although

proffered by the State to corroborate I.M.'s testimony and thus bolster its case

against defendants, was also favorable to defendants as impeachment evidence

because it offered an alternative explanation for the source of the money .

Second, the first assistant's withholding the evidence was purposeful, since he

obtained the statement the night before trial and failed to disclose the

information prior to eliciting the testimony before the jury. And third, the

evidence was material to defendants' case not just by offering a legitimate source

of the money but because defendants had formulated their trial strategy around

the lack of corroboration of I.M.'s testimony, to their detriment when the State

then proffered A.M.'s statement that she had also seen the envelopes.

                                                                             A-2237-22
                                       10
      We then turn to the judge's decision to declare a mistrial, which is

addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on

appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 224 N.J.

36, 47 (2016); State v. Jackson, 211 N.J. 394, 407 (2012); McKenney v. Jersey

City Med. Ctr., 167 N.J. 359, 376 (2001).        "The grant of a mistrial is an

extraordinary remedy to be exercised only when necessary 'to prevent an

obvious failure of justice.'" State v. Yough, 208 N.J. 385, 397 (2011) (quoting

State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 205 (1997)). "[A]n appellate court will not

disturb a trial court's ruling on a motion for a mistrial, absent an abuse of

discretion that results in a manifest injustice." Jackson, 211 N.J. at 407 (quoting

Harvey, 151 N.J. at 205).

      "Of course, declaring a mistrial is never a preferred course." State v.

Smith, 471 N.J. Super. 548, 579 (App. Div. 2022). "If there is 'an appropriate

alternative course of action,' a mistrial is not a proper exercise of discretion. "

Smith, 224 N.J. at 47 (quoting State v. Allah, 170 N.J. 269, 281 (2002)). "For

example, a curative instruction, a short adjournment or continuance, or some

other remedy, may provide a viable alternative to a mistrial, depending on the

facts of the case." Ibid.

                                                                             A-2237-22
                                       11
      Here, the court correctly determined that the State's error could not be

remedied by a curative instruction or adjournment.           A.M.'s corroborative

testimony that she had seen envelopes of money was not just new information

for which defendants needed additional time to investigate, and dismissing the

prostitution charge was likewise insufficient to cure the harm at trial. The State's

case rested squarely on I.M.'s testimony; defendants' trial strategy as articulated

in its opening statement was centered on I.M.'s credibility and, importantly, the

lack of corroborative evidence. Curative jury instructions to disregard A.M.'s

testimony and to reiterate that opening statements are not testimony would not

have ensured the jurors were insulated from the prejudicial effect of the

improper statement. Because the testimony irrevocably unraveled defendants'

trial strategy, the trial judge correctly determined a mistrial was the only remedy

and we affirm that order.

      We lastly address the judge's dismissal of the indictment against both

defendants. "A decision to dismiss an indictment is generally left to the sound

discretion of the trial court and is reviewed only for abuse of discretion." State

v. Zadroga, 255 N.J. 114, 131 (2023) (citing State v. Twiggs, 233 N.J. 513, 544

(2018)).   The trial court's discretion "must be informed and guided by

considerations of fundamental fairness, as well as the judiciary's responsibility

                                                                              A-2237-22
                                        12
for the proper overall administration of the criminal justice system." State v.

Abbati, 99 N.J. 418, 429 (1985).

      "[A] trial court must dismiss an indictment if prosecution would violate

the defendant's constitutional rights." Abbati, 99 N.J. at 425. "[I]n the context

of a Brady violation, the remedy of dismissal of an indictment with prejudice is

utilized when the 'conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due

process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoke judicial

processes to obtain a conviction.'" Brown, 236 N.J. at 528 (quoting United

States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32 (1973)).

      Dismissal of an indictment due to a discovery violation is a "last resort

because the public interest, the rights of victims, and the integrity of the criminal

justice system are at stake." State v. Ruffin, 371 N.J. Super. 371, 384 (App.

Div. 2003). The rights of a victim include a trial court's balancing the harm to

a victim against those to a defendant and considering fairness and respect for

the victim. State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515, 556 (1999).

      The New Jersey Constitution ensures victims have the right "to be treated

with fairness, compassion, and respect by the criminal justice system." N.J.

Const. art. I, § 22. Under the Crime Victims' Bill of Rights, crime victims have

the right "[t]o be treated with dignity and compassion by the criminal justice

                                                                               A-2237-22
                                        13
system," N.J.S.A. 52:4B-36(a); the right "[t]o be informed about the criminal

justice process," id. at (b); the right "[t]o be informed about available remedies,"

id. at (h); and the right "[t]o be advised of case progress," id. at (k). Victims

also have the right to appear for a proceeding implicating their rights and have

standing to file a motion or present argument on a motion filed, and to receive

an adjudicated decision by the court on any such motion. Id. at (r).

      Here, I.M. reported her grandmother and great-uncle had sexually

assaulted her when she was eleven years old, egregious crimes for which

defendants faced life sentences. It is unclear from the record before us whether

I.M. was aware of the motion for mistrial and her right to participate in it. What

the record reflects, however, is that the court reached its conclusion by

considering the misconduct of the prosecutor and the harm to George, to the

exclusion of I.M.'s rights as a victim. Particularly because a victim's rights are

of constitutional dimension in New Jersey, the court's failure to consider those

interests constitutes an abuse of discretion.

      We also are troubled by the weight given by the court to the first assistant's

actions in a different matter involving George to support the dismissal of the

entire indictment as to both defendants in this matter. While the first assistant's

failure to disclose the statement constituted a Brady violation in this case, the

                                                                              A-2237-22
                                        14
conduct was not "so outrageous" as to "absolutely bar" the prosecution of the

case.    Cf. Russell, 411 U.S. at 431-32 (undercover detective's providing

defendant an essential ingredient to manufacture methamphetamine does not

constitute "outrageous" conduct necessitating dismissal of the indictment with

prejudice). There also is no indication in the record that the State intentionally

engaged in misconduct to procure a mistrial, in which case a dismissal with

prejudice may be warranted. See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982)

(prosecutor's calling defendant a "crook" resulted in mistrial but was not

intended to provoke defendant into seeking mistrial). Moreover, the dismissal

of Greta's indictment is puzzling because she was not a defendant in the other

matter, and the court's finding of a "manifest injustice" was only as to George.

Therefore, we will reverse the trial court's decision and order the indictment

reinstated against defendants.

        One final note. While the concerns set forth require us to reverse the

court's decision and reinstate the indictment, our opinion should not be read to

condone or mitigate the State's failure to disclose discovery to defense counsel.

This intentional conduct squandered the time and resources of the court, counsel

and jury. We trust that on remand, the State will ensure the fair and efficient

administration of justice in this matter.

                                                                            A-2237-22
                                        15
     Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

                                                                  A-2237-22
                                 16