STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LAQUAN H. HARRIS (10-07-0752, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5282-18T2
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAQUAN H. HARRIS,
a/k/a QUAN, and Q,
Defendant-Respondent.
Argued February 27, 2020 – Decided June 8, 2020
Before Judges Alvarez and Suter.
On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County,
Indictment No. 10-07-0752.
Michele C. Buckley, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
for appellant (Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union
County Prosecutor, attorney; Michele C. Buckley, of
counsel and on the briefs).
John Andrew Albright, Designated Counsel, argued the
cause for respondent (Joseph E. Krakora, Public
Defender, attorney; John Andrew Albright, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
On leave to appeal, the State challenges a June 19, 2019 order granting
defendant Laquan Harris post-conviction relief (PCR) and a new trial based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. See R. 2:2-3(b).
Having reviewed the trial record, we conclude defendant's trial counsel
mounted a vigorous defense over the course of the ten-day trial. The asserted
omissions neither made the representation less than adequate nor prejudiced the
outcome. Thus, we reverse.
The familiar Strickland v. Washington standard requires a defendant
asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in a PCR petition to establish two
elements: that the representation he or she received was less than competent and
that the deficiency prejudiced his or her right to a fair trial. 466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984); State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560, 578-79 (2015). Defendant bears the burden
of demonstrating a reasonable probability that the alleged deficiency affected
the outcome. Pierre, 223 N.J. at 583. Failure to conduct an adequate pretrial
investigation can constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, as such claims
may be raised regarding every stage of a criminal prosecution. State v. Allah,
A-5282-18T2
2
170 N.J. 269, 289-90 (2002); State v. Russo, 333 N.J. Super. 119, 139 (App.
Div. 2000).
The trial judge sentenced defendant to thirty-six years imprisonment on
March 22, 2013 for first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)(2), pursuant to
the No Early Release Act's eighty-five percent parole ineligibility. N.J.S.A.
2C:43-7.2. We affirmed the jury's verdict. State v. Harris, No. A-4794-12 (App.
Div. Mar. 10, 2016).
Our reversal of the judge's order requires context. We therefore provide a
detailed discussion of the circumstances.
Defendant was close to Leslie Johnson, whom he saw as a father figure.
As a result, defendant became hostile towards the victim Antonio Davis, who at
times engaged in armed confrontations with Johnson.
The evening of the murder, at around 5:30 or 6:00 p.m., India Bowers and
Alicia McCrary walked by the area of the housing complex in which Davis lived.
Bowers gave a statement and testified that she overheard defendant and Davis
arguing in the vestibule of one of the buildings of the apartment complex. Davis
told defendant he was not allowed in the building, and in response, defendant
told Davis that he was "going to put some hot shit in you[,]" which Bowers
interpreted to mean defendant was threatening to shoot him.
A-5282-18T2
3
Kristina Jones, a friend of defendant, testified that he stopped by her
apartment in an adjoining building in the complex between 6:30 or 7:00 p.m.
that day. He wore blue pants and a black zip-up jacket that had large white
lettering on it. She said she had previously spoken to defendant about his anger
towards Davis, stemming from Davis's conflicts with Johnson. She discussed it
with him that day as well.
Marquan Anderson, Davis's cousin, made three statements to the police,
which he later repudiated at trial. He initially told police that he saw the shooter
approaching the vestibule where he and Davis were selling drugs that night. He
actually made eye contact with the person, whom he identified as defendant , for
a few seconds. Anderson saw defendant pull a ski mask up to cover the lower
portion of his face, so only his eyes were visible. Defendant pushed open the
vestibule door, raised his arm, and shot Davis on the left side of his face at close
range.
Anderson identified defendant as the shooter only once—during that first
interview. On the stand, he claimed he implicated defendant because he wanted
the authorities to leave him alone. Anderson insisted he would never be a snitch,
because that was something from which you would never recover.
A-5282-18T2
4
The jury heard the relevant portions of Anderson's first statement in which
he implicated defendant. He had known Davis, Johnson, and defendant for
years. At the time of the incident, Anderson was acting as a lookout for Davis,
who was selling drugs from the vestibule, watching through the glass window
of the building's front door.
Once Anderson realized that Davis had been shot, he went immediately to
his aid. He asked Davis if he knew the identity of the person who shot him
because Anderson believed at that point that Davis would "make it." Anderson
testified the victim said that he did not see who shot him. Davis asked Anderson
to take him outside; Anderson said it was fifteen minutes before the authorities
and medical assistance arrived.
The responding police officer stated Davis was unable to speak, only
moan and scream from pain. He rode with the victim in the back of the
ambulance to the hospital, and during the ride, Davis had difficulty breathing
and did not talk.
A nurse's emergency room notes indicated Davis told an EMT that he did
not know who shot him. At the PCR evidentiary hearing, counsel said he knew
the identity of the EMT who allegedly made the statement. Counsel's failure to
A-5282-18T2
5
follow up on the note and to call the EMT as a witness, while knowing his
identity, was a reason the judge granted defendant a new trial.
Bowers testified that she was home when she received a call that Davis
had been shot.1 She went outside, and saw defendant running away from Davis's
building. Defendant was wearing a black do-rag, hoodie, and blue jeans.
Bowers was acquainted with defendant, whom she identified from a photo array.
Nearby at approximately 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. that night, Marilyn Howard
parked her car.2 As she was unloading take-out, she heard a peculiar firecracker
sound. Howard saw someone running towards her, trying to "tuck" a handgun
at his waist while pulling a ski mask back over his face with his other hand. She
described him as five foot eleven, thin, and wearing a red baseball cap with
reflector, black ski mask, dark jeans, and a hoodie. When she turned towards
the building, she saw Davis on the ground.
McCrary was not called either by the State or defendant. She was
interviewed by police on April 22, 2009, and reported that her boyfriend,
Waheed Washington, was with the victim an hour or forty-five minutes "before
1
In an earlier statement, Bowers said she encountered defendant fleeing from
the scene as she returned from a trip to the store.
2
The time frame was included in the question posed to Howard on direct and
never clarified.
A-5282-18T2
6
he got shot." She also said Washington told her the victim had been shot and
nothing more—"if he was out there he didn't tell me and he wasn't gonna go tell
me."
In that same statement, which was not played to the jury, McCrary said
her cousin phoned, saying she had "heard" that defendant shot the victim.
McCrary knew the victim and Johnson had an ongoing conflict, and thought
Johnson "had custody of a boy" which might have been defendant. She did not
mention being with Bowers that day. At the end of the interview, McCrary asked
the detective for his card and volunteered that if she learned any pertinent
information, she would contact him.
On February 17, 2012, Bowers went to police and reported that McCrary
had confronted her about naming her as a potential witness. Bowers said
McCrary told her if she was interviewed about the incident, McCrary was going
to say she did not remember anything from the day of Davis's murder, as
Washington himself did later when called on the stand.
A cellmate of defendant, who implicated him, also testified. He said
defendant told him he was at a "lady friend's" apartment when he came down
and bumped into the victim. The two men argued and he shot the victim in the
face with a gun. After he killed the man, he took off running.
A-5282-18T2
7
The cellmate said defendant also told him he was seen by an older lady
who was parking her car, but who described his clothing incorrectly. The older
lady described defendant as wearing a blue jacket with a black hat, but he was
actually wearing a black jacket and blue pants.
During his closing argument to the jury, counsel attempted to highlight
that the State did not call McCrary, suggesting the failure to do so was because
her testimony might not have been favorable. The trial judge sustained the
State's objection to the argument. In the PCR judge's written decision, she relied
in part on counsel's failure to further investigate McCrary's statement in
preparation for requesting a Clawans3 charge.
Counsel, admitted to the bar in 1971, testified at the PCR hearing that he
focused his practice on criminal law. Once he left full-time employment with
the public defender's office, he accepted assignments as designated counsel in
conflict cases. He was assigned this case because the matter ended in a mistrial
because defendant's public defender had previously represented one of the
State's witnesses, a fact discovered only after the trial began. Counsel had tried
3
State v. Clawans, 38 N.J. 162, 171 (1962) ("For an inference to be drawn from
the nonproduction of a witness it must appear that the person was within the
power of the party to produce and that his testimony would have been superior
to that already utilized in respect to the fact to be proved.").
A-5282-18T2
8
over 300 criminal cases over his career, about 250 of them before he left the
public defender's office. He included more than a handful of homicides in this
figure.
At the evidentiary hearing, counsel agreed that he should have cross-
examined Bowers about her two criminal convictions, since the State had not
elicited the information on direct, describing the omission as a mistake. He said,
however, his decision not to call McCrary was a matter of strategy. There was
a time discrepancy between Bowers's and Howard's testimony, and he wanted
the jury to believe that although Bowers may have seen defendant running from
the scene, only Howard saw the shooter, at a different time. The jury in fact
asked a question about this discrepancy during deliberations.
Counsel described Bowers and McCrary as "loose cannons," and said he
decided as a matter of strategy that he had a better chance of convincing the jury
that the State had failed to present all the relevant evidence than of getting any
useful information from McCrary. Furthermore, he could not have successfully
requested a Clawans charge because McCrary was equally available to both
parties.
Since the defense theory was third party liability, counsel hoped to
capitalize on the time discrepancy between Bowers's and Howard's testimony to
A-5282-18T2
9
his advantage. He argued in closing that the red cap Howard described the
assailant as wearing was not seen by anyone else, and Howard was the only
witness not previously connected or acquainted with anyone in the victim or
defendant's social circle. He wanted Bowers's identification of defendant to
stand because it conflicted with Howard's description.
Counsel explained he did not pursue the dying declaration, either because
he "dropped the ball," or because it was a dead end. He said it was difficult after
so many years to reconstruct his thinking on the issues being raised at the PCR
evidentiary hearing unless there were notes in the file on the subject.
The judge granted defendant PCR relief because she considered Bowers
"one of the State's most important witness[es] at defendant's trial[,]" in addition
to the reasons we have noted. She found McCrary was "cooperative in her
statement" yet said nothing about being with Bowers that day. For that reason,
McCrary could have challenged Bowers's identification of defendant. She found
counsel's performance "deficient, in part, for failing to conduct an adequate
investigation of McCrary." In connection with this mistake, she considered
counsel's failure to impeach Bowers with her prior criminal history "create[d]
cause for questioning the confidence in the outcome of this case."
A-5282-18T2
10
Finally, she found counsel's failure to investigate Davis's dying
declaration that he did not know who shot him, as repeated in the emergency
room notes, to have been a "huge mistake." She further opined that counsel's
failure to investigate the source of the statement could not be "upheld" because
it was not competent, and defendant was deprived of effective assistance as a
result.
On appeal, the State raises the following issues:
POINT I
LEAVE TO APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED
BECAUSE THE STATE WILL SUFFER
IRREPARABLE INJURY FROM THE PCR COURT'S
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S PETITION
FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF.
A. The PCR Court Erred In Finding Counsel
Ineffective For Failing To Investigate Or Call Alicia
McCrary As A Witness And Was Therefore Ill Prepared
To Request A [Clawans] Charge.
B. The PCR Court Erred In Finding Counsel Was
Ineffective For Failing To Impeach India Bowers With
Her Prior Convictions.
C. The PCR Court Erred In Finding Trial Counsel
Was Ineffective For Failing To Investigate The Source
Of The Victim's Purported Dying Declaration.
A-5282-18T2
11
I.
We first address the two failures the Law Division judge considered most
consequential: counsel's failure to impeach Bowers with her prior criminal
history and to interview McCrary so that defendant was in a position to request
a Clawans charge. The trial record does not support the conclusion that the
failure to interview McCrary was inadequate representation. Additionally,
Bowers was not one of the most important witnesses at trial, thus the failure to
impeach her did not prejudice defendant's right to a fair trial.
Anderson's description of the incident and his identification of defendant
in his first statement were key, as was the cellmate's testimony. The context of
the long-standing animosity between defendant and Davis was established not
just through Bowers, but through a friend of defendant, and Anderson himself.
Thus, Bowers's testimony regarding motive, that she overheard a fight earlier
that day during which defendant allegedly threatened Davis, was not the only
testimony the State proffered. Bowers's testimony provided an immediacy to
the conflict but so did the testimony from Jones, defendant's friend. She also
said that she had spoken to defendant over time about the conflict, and that on
that day he again expressed his anger towards the victim. This means that
although Bowers's description of the fight was significant, the State still had
A-5282-18T2
12
sufficient evidence to establish motive, even if her description had been entirely
absent from the record.
Certainly, counsel's testimony that it was a mistake to have failed to
impeach Bowers with her prior convictions sounds damning. This "admission"
followed his explanation, however, that in order to establish third-party liability,
he hoped to highlight the significant difference in timelines between Bowers's
and Howard's testimony and was interested in presenting Bowers as a credible
witness. The jury during deliberations asked about this very point.
Counsel’s representation was not perfect, none are. 4 He had a strategy—
a theory of defense which wove Bowers's unimpeached testimony into the
presentation he made to the jury in summation. His argument was that the time
discrepancy and difference in clothing meant Bowers saw defendant about an
hour, if not two, before Howard saw a different man, the shooter. Ultimately,
this strategy was unsuccessful. The representation, however, was thorough,
included extensive prepared cross-examination of each witness spread out over
ten days, and cogent arguments were made at every turn.
4
For example, Bowers initially had said that she walked past the housing
complex a second time to go to the store, as opposed to her statement at trial
that she went outside her house after the shooting because she received a call
about it. Counsel did not explore that issue. In light of the State's other proofs,
it is not clear how the omission affected the outcome.
A-5282-18T2
13
In order for a party to establish a basis for a Clawans charge, he or she
must, among other things, show that the witness was "peculiarly within the
control or power of only the one party, or that there is a special relationship
between the party and the witness or the party has superior knowledge of the
identity of the witness or of the testimony the witness might be expected to give"
and that "such testimony appears to be superior to that already utilized in respect
to the fact to be proven." State v. Hickman, 204 N.J. Super. 409, 414 (App. Div.
1985). In this case, those two crucial elements were missing.
McCrary was equally available to both parties. There was nothing so
consequential about the testimony she might have given as to whether or not she
heard defendant and the victim arguing earlier in the day because the
acrimonious relationship between Davis and defendant was not in dispute. Thus,
even if counsel had engaged in additional investigation, no basis in the law
would have been established to warrant the Clawans charge. Counsel cannot be
faulted for failing to conduct an investigation in order to better prepare for a
doomed request to charge. Although it is true that counsel's approach failed, in
that he unsuccessfully attempted to argue McCrary's absence to the jury to cast
doubt on the State's case, it was a strategic gamble.
A-5282-18T2
14
II.
Regardless of whether counsel failed to explore the dying declaration, the
jury heard Anderson's testimony that the shooter was masked when the incident
occurred. Thus, it would not be surprising that the victim who had seconds, if
that, to see someone partially obscured by a door could not identify his assailant.
But Anderson said when he asked Davis if he saw who shot him, Davis
said no. The jury heard that testimony. Once having heard that from Anderson,
counsel may have decided to do nothing further, as it was not necessary and may
have only corroborated Anderson's first statement. Counsel said he assumed he
had a reason for not calling the EMT, but did not recall what it was. We repeat
the obvious—a person whose face is hidden behind a mask cannot be identified,
particularly when wearing a head covering as the shooter did in this case. It was
ultimately inconsequential that Davis did not know who shot him. The decision
not to call the EMT had no impact on the fairness of the trial.
Counsel's representation was competent. Even if we were to conclude it
was not, based on the Law Division judge's findings, the specific decisions could
not have prejudiced the outcome in light of the other proofs the State presented.
Reversed.
A-5282-18T2
15