RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3507-18T2 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. L.B., Defendant-Appellant. _________________________ Submitted December 2, 2020 – Decided January 6, 2021 Before Judges Vernoia and Enright. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County, Indictment No. 15-03-0206. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Zachary G. Markarian, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the briefs). Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Daniel Finkelstein, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant L.B.1 appeals from his conviction by a jury of second-degree sexual assault. He contends the trial court violated his right to a fair trial and to fully confront the witnesses against him by barring cross-examination of the victim R.P.S. about her illegal entry into the United States fourteen years prior to the sexual assault. Unpersuaded, we affirm. I. Because defendant's appeal presents a narrow issue for our consideration, we limit our summary of the pertinent facts to those necessary to provide context for our analysis of defendant's argument. A grand jury charged defendant in an indictment with second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1), by committing one or more acts of sexual penetration on R.P.S. by using physical force. At the commencement of the trial, the court granted defendant's request for a Rule 104 hearing, see N.J.R.E. 104, to determine the allowable scope of R.P.S.'s testimony concerning her immigration status. Defendant sought to cross-examine R.P.S. about her immigration status to establish she had a motive to falsely allege she had been sexually assaulted. 1 Defendant and the victim of the sexual assault for which he was convicted are husband and wife. We use initials to identify defendant and the victim to ensure the victim's identity is protected from public access. See R. 1:38-3(c)(12). A-3507-18T2 2 During the hearing, R.P.S. testified she is married to defendant, who is a United States citizen, and that the couple's two children are also citizens. She explained she entered the United States in 2000 without a visa, but she was presently in the country legally because she had a work permit. R.P.S. testified that prior to the December 8, 2014 sexual assault alleged in the indictment, she began the process of applying for citizenship, and, at the time of trial, the process was ongoing. She also testified her work permit was scheduled to expire in June 2017, three months following the trial. R.P.S. testified she is aware a person may gain United States citizenship by being married to a citizen such as defendant, and she also understood that a person may gain citizenship if he or she is the victim of a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals