RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-2307-18 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMAINE L. COLE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Argued May 10, 2021 – Decided June 22, 2021 Before Judges Fasciale and Rothstadt. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 17-04-0550. Brian J. Yarzab, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Brian J. Yarzab, on the briefs). Deepa S. Jacobs, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney; William P. Miller, of counsel; Catherine A. Foddai, Legal Assistant, on the briefs). Appellant filed pro se supplemental briefs. PER CURIAM A jury found defendant Jamaine L. Cole guilty of six counts of a seven- count indictment alleging that he conspired with others to commit a burglary and robbery. After his trial, defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of twenty-seven years in prison, with an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. Defendant appeals from his conviction, arguing the following points: POINT I THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR IN CHARGING THE JURY ON DEFENDANT'S LIABILITY AS A CONSPIRATOR. THE CHARGE FAILED TO EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE STATE'S CONCESSION THAT THE WRONG APARTMENT WAS BURGLARIZED, AND UTTERLY FAILED TO POINT OUT TO THE JURY PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT EMPHASIZING THAT THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED IN THE VICTIMS' APARTMENT WERE NEVER CONTEMPLATED BY DEFENDANT. THE COURT'S FAILURE TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE WRONG APARTMENT WAS BURGLARIZED OR TO EXPLAIN THE LAW OF CONSPIRACY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTUAL RECORD, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL. (ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW.) 2 A-2307-18 POINT II DEFENDANT'S REPEATED REQUEST TO SPEAK WITH HIS GIRLFRIEND BECAUSE HE "NEEDS SOME ADVICE" AND "I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND," A REQUEST THAT BEGAN IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING DEFENDANT'S SIGNING OF THE [MIRANDA 1] WAIVER, COMBINED WITH THE INVESTIGATING DETECTIVE'S MISREPRESENTATION TO DEFENDANT THAT IF HE SPOKE WITH HER "SHE GETS CALLED TO BE A WITNESS" DEMONSTRATES THAT DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT TO INVOKE HIS RIGHT TO SILENCE WAS OBSTRUCTED BY POLICE AND THAT HIS ATTEMPTED INVOCATION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT WAS NOT SCRUPULOUSLY HONORED. POINT III THE TRIAL COURT'S REFUSAL TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE MALE VICTIM ABOUT HIS DELIBERATE MISTRANSLATION OF HIS WIFE'S TESTIMONY DESCRIBING ONE INTRUDER AND REFUSAL TO ALLOW CROSS- EXAMINATION OF BOTH ADULT VICTIMS ON WHETHER THEIR TESTIMONY WAS INFLUENCED BY THE BERGEN COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE'S SUBMISSION OF AN INDISPENSABLE CERTIFICATION SUPPORTING THEIR U VISA APPLICATION CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR. 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 3 A-2307-18 POINT IV 2 SINCE THE PROCEDURES FOR APPLYING FOR A TELEPHONIC ARREST WARRANT WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH, AND DID …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals