STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. E.G.T. (15-09-1712, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2020 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4850-17T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
E.G.T.,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Argued telephonically April 20, 2020 –
Decided May 7, 2020
Before Judges Sabatino and Geiger.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 15-09-
1712.
Michael J. Confusione, argued the cause for appellant
(Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys; Michael J.
Confusione, of counsel and on the brief).
Monica do Outeiro, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the
cause for respondent (Christopher J. Gramiccioni,
Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney; Monica do
Outeiro, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant E.G.T.,1 appeals from his conviction for sexual assaulting his
first cousin and sentence. We affirm.
I.
We take the following facts from the trial record. J.S. and defendant are
first cousins. On August 10, 2014, J.S. traveled to New Jersey to attend another
cousin's baby shower; J.S. resides in Baltimore with her husband. That
weekend, defendant was staying at his father's home in a nearby town but did
not attend the baby shower. Rather than drive back to Baltimore that evening,
J.S. accepted her uncle's invitation to spend the night at his home.
After the baby shower, J.S. drove to her uncle's house where she met with
her uncle and defendant. Her uncle showed her around his house, including the
second-floor bedroom where she would be sleeping. Around 10:30 p.m., J.S.
and defendant decided to walk to a nearby bar to "catch up" over drinks. There,
they alternated in buying approximately five rounds of drinks. J.S. went to the
restroom after finishing her fourth drink. When she arrived back at their table,
J.S. noticed defendant had already purchased another round of drinks. J.S. noted
1
We refer to defendant and the victim by initials to protect the victim's privacy.
R. 1:38-3(c)(12).
A-4850-17T4
2
her drink tasted "different," describing it as "rail vodka." J.S. and defendant left
the bar around 1:30 a.m.; each provided a different version of what transpired
afterwards.
J.S. testified that prior to consuming the fifth drink she felt "tipsy" but
"[n]ot completely drunk." However, her fifth drink "tasted a little bit different"
and "off a little bit." After consuming it, J.S. does not remember how she got
back to her uncle's home or getting undressed.
Her next recollection, through "tunnel vision," was laying naked in bed
with defendant who "spat" on two of his fingers and "shoved them inside [her]
vagina." J.S. attempted to stop defendant by "fl[inging] [her] left leg over him
and crouch[ing] on [her] right side in a fetal position" and attempting to say
"no," but was unable to because her "body was so weak." She "remember[ed]
feeling a tug on [her] hip as if [defendant] was trying to pull [her] back onto
[her] back and [she] passed out again." J.S. regained consciousness a second
time as defendant "was masturbating himself, and again he took his two fingers
and spit on them and shoved them inside of [her] and at that point [she] did say
no and [she] rolled over the same way [she] did the first time."
J.S. testified she "was feeling much more conscious, much more alert than
the first time," but she felt "groggy, still heavy, still feeling kind of weak." At
A-4850-17T4
3
this point, she "covered [herself] up with the covers." In response, defendant
got dressed and left the room, asking J.S. if she wanted coffee. After a moment
of silence, J.S. responded "Yes, if you're making some." While defendant
showered, J.S. got dressed but could not locate her shirt. When defendant was
in the kitchen, J.S. asked from the bedroom if he knew where her shirt was;
defendant went upstairs and found J.S.'s shirt behind a pillow. J.S. then went
downstairs and had coffee while defendant was getting ready for work.
Defendant left for work about ten minutes later. Shortly thereafter, J.S. drove
back to Baltimore.
J.S. testified she felt "differently" when compared to previous occasions
that she consumed similar amounts of alcohol, describing it as a "heavy
grogginess that was just unlike anything [she] had felt before." J.S. stated that
what she felt was "not the same" as a typical hangover.
J.S. further testified:
I knew that I did not consent to sex. I never actually
saw him penetrate me with his penis. I knew that this
was my cousin, my blood relative, my family, and I
couldn't believe what just happened. I was in shock,
traumatized, disgusted, and just I thought that, you
know, I was just going to go have some drinks with
somebody that I should have been able to trust.
A-4850-17T4
4
The next morning, J.S. told her friend that defendant had raped her. That
same day, J.S. and her friend went to the Greater Baltimore Medical Center,
where a Sexual Assault Forensics Examination (SAFE) was performed on J.S.
Samples taken during the SAFE exam were compared to DNA profiles
developed from known samples from J.S., her husband, and defendant. The
State's forensic scientist opined that defendant was the major contributor for the
sperm located on J.S.'s vaginal swab.
Defendant's version is much different. Defendant testified he and J.S.
walked to a bar where they had five or more rounds of alcoholic drinks. The
then walked to a pizzeria at 1:30 a.m. to get food before walking back to his
father's house. Defendant stated he and J.S. "were fine" but "both pretty drunk."
Defendant went upstairs where he went to the bathroom, got changed, and went
to bed. Thereafter, J.S. entered his room and "started kissing [him]." Though
shocked and "very surprised," defendant stated they engaged in consensual
sexual intercourse after removing each other's clothing, and then fell asleep
together.
Defendant further testified he woke up the next morning at around 8:00
a.m. to go to work; he took a shower and went downstairs to the kitchen for
coffee. Thereafter, J.S. went downstairs wearing her pants and a bra, and told
A-4850-17T4
5
defendant she could not find her shirt. They went upstairs together to look for
J.S.'s shirt, which defendant found under the pillow where they slept. Defendant
then made J.S. a cup of coffee and they had a brief conversation in the kitchen
before defendant left for work.
In September 2015, a Monmouth County Grand Jury returned an
indictment charging defendant with first-degree aggravated sexual assault,
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7) (count one); and second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A.
2C:14-2(c)(1) (count two).
Prior to trial, defendant moved in limine to exclude all testimony
advancing the theory that defendant drugged J.S. Defendant argued such
testimony is inappropriate because the State lacked physical evidence or expert
testimony that J.S. was drugged, and J.S.'s own lay testimony that she was
drugged, or that she took a substance that altered her state of mind, was not
admissible. Conversely, the State argued such testimony was appropriate
because J.S. "is allowed to testify to her perceptions, to her observations, to how
she's feeling."
The trial court granted the motion in part. It barred any testimony
asserting that J.S. "had been drugged." The court allowed J.S. to testify
A-4850-17T4
6
regarding her mental and physical condition as well as her observations and
perceptions. The court explained:
Under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7), the State must prove
[d]efendant knew or should have known that J.S. "was
physically helpless or incapacitated."
As a lay witness, J.S. may testify to her mental
and physical condition as well as her observations and
perceptions on the morning of the incident. J.S.
testifying about her own mental and physical condition
is certainly within her rational perception. Similarly,
J.S.'s testimony is helpful to determining a fact in issue,
specifically whether or not J.S. was physically helpless
or incapacitated.
J.S., however, is not an expert witness. The State
must not elicit testimony from J.S. that she "had been
drugged." Such an opinion is scientific and falls within
the realm of expert testimony. What J.S. perceived
through one or more of her senses, however, is clearly
admissible lay witness testimony.
The court also precluded the State from introducing testimony from the SAFE
nurse regarding testing for the presence of specific drugs as part of standard
toxicological testing performed on the victim's blood and urine samples and the
reasons why those tests were not performed.
During a pretrial conference held the week before trial, the State raised
the issue of whether Dr. Safferstein, who had authored a preliminary report on
behalf of defendant, would be proffered as a defense toxicological expert. The
A-4850-17T4
7
State noted Dr. Safferstein was not listed on defendant's witness list and it had
not received his final expert report. Defense counsel advised the court that Dr.
Safferstein was not being called as a witness.
The case proceeded to trial. In her opening, the prosecutor informed the
jury that after J.S. returned from the bar bathroom, "defendant ha[d] brought a
fifth round of drinks," and that "the drink tasted different; not horrible, just
different." She then stated that J.S. lost consciousness soon after. Later in the
trial, defendant did not object to J.S.'s testimony regarding her "self-described"
altered state. After the State rested, defense counsel moved for a mistrial
contending the State improperly elicited testimony from J.S., through leading
questions, that she felt "heavy grogginess that was just unlike anything she had
felt before" and "a line of questioning regarding the alcohol that she drank, her
history of drinking alcohol, her history of being drunk, [and] her history of being
under the influence of alcohol." The court denied the motion, finding it was
"satisfied" the State had "scrupulously complied" with its prior ruling.
During the charge conference, defendant requested the court to warn the
State to not discuss drugs during its closing argument. The court responded, "I
think we're crystal clear on that."
A-4850-17T4
8
On March 29, 2017, the jury found defendant guilty of second-degree
sexual assault but acquitted him of first-degree aggravated sexual assault.
Defendant was evaluated at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center to
determine eligibility for sentencing under the purview of the New Jersey Sex
Offender Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:47-1 to -10. The report by psychologist Mark Frank,
Ph.D., noted that defendant had "no known prior arrests or convictions for sex
offenses." Defendant's score on the Static-99R2 instrument placed him in the
average risk category for sexual reoffending. Dr. Frank concluded there was no
evidence "that the present offense forms a part of a repetitive pattern of criminal
sexual behavior." See N.J.S.A. 2C:47-2. He found "no indication of sexual
compulsion." See ibid. Accordingly, defendant was determined to be ineligible
for sentencing under the Sex Offender Act.
Defendant, who was thirty-six years old at the time of sentencing, had no
juvenile record or prior indictable convictions. In 2003, defendant was charged
2
"The Static-99 is an actuarial test used to estimate the probability of sexually
violent recidivism in adult males previously convicted of sexually violent
offenses." In re Civil Commitment of A.Y., 458 N.J. Super. 147, 158 n.1 (App.
Div. 2019) (quoting In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 164 n.9
(2014)). The Static-99R is "based upon static factors, which are elements of a
person's history which cannot be changed, as opposed to dynamic factors, which
are elements which can be modified over time." In re J.P., 339 N.J. Super. 443,
451 (App. Div. 2001).
A-4850-17T4
9
with simple assault of his father, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1). The charge was
dismissed. A domestic violence restraining order entered against defendant
arising out of the same incident was dismissed in 2010. In 2012, defendant was
found guilty of violating a municipal ordinance for urinating in public.
Defendant appeared for sentencing on July 21, 2017. The trial court found
aggravating factors three (risk defendant will reoffend) and nine (need for
deterrence), N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3), (9), and no mitigating factors. It declined
to find mitigating factor seven (defendant has no history of prior delinquency or
criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period), N.J.S.A.
2C:44-1(b)(7). The court found the aggravating factors "substantially
outweighed" the non-existent mitigating factors.
Defendant was sentenced to a ten-year prison term subject to an eighty-
five percent period of parole ineligibility and three years of mandatory parole
supervision under the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, the
reporting and registration requirements of Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23,
parole supervision for life, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, and mandatory fines and
penalties.
In finding aggravating factor three, the judge determined there was a clear
risk defendant will commit another offense. The court noted defendant "is not
A-4850-17T4
10
accepting full blame for his part in this incident" and stated that "what happened
was totally inappropriate." In find aggravating factor nine, the judge explained
there was a clear need to deter both defendant and others from this unacceptable
behavior. The court noted it is unacceptable to blame the victim.
In declining to find mitigating factor seven, the court explained that
because of defendant's prior "involvement with the criminal justice system," it
could not find "defendant has no history of prior delinquency [or] criminal
activity, or has led a law abiding life for a substantial period of time." This
appeal followed.
Defendant raises the following points for our consideration:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING IN
FULL DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE
THE PROSECUTION FROM ELICITING
TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT BEFORE THE
JURY SUGGESTING THAT J.S. MUST HAVE BEEN
DRUGGED BY DEFENDANT ON THE NIGHT IN
QUESTION, AND IN NOT GRANTING A MISTRIAL
AFTER THE PROSECUTION PLACED THE
FORBIDDEN EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT
BEFORE THE JURY.
POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT PERMITTING
DEFENDANT TO OFFER AT TRIAL THEIR OWN
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND EXPERT
A-4850-17T4
11
TESTIMONY SHOWING THAT J.S. DID NOT
HAVE ANY DRUGS IN HER SYSTEM AT THE
TIME IN QUESTION (PLAIN ERROR; RAISED BUT
NOT OBJECTED TO BELOW).
POINT III
THE PROSECUTOR EXCEEDED FAIR COMMENT
ON THE EVIDENCE BY TELLING THE JURY
DURING SUMMATION THAT DEFENSE
COUNSEL WAS INVOKING ONLY "MYTHS,"
"STEREOTYPES," AND "CLICHÉS" IN
ATTACKING THE RAPE VICTIM'S CREDIBILITY
(PLAIN ERROR).
POINT IV
DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS IMPROPER AND
EXCESSIVE.
We have considered these arguments and find they lack merit.
II.
Defendant argues the trial court erred in not granting his motion in limine
in its entirety. Specifically, defendant argues the testimony elicited from J.S.,
coupled with the State's comments, prejudiced him by allowing the State to
invite the jury to speculate that J.S.'s fifth drink was drugged. For that same
reason, defendant contends the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial.
A.
We first address the partial denial of defendant's motion in limine.
"Traditional rules of appellate review require substantial deference to a trial
A-4850-17T4
12
court's evidentiary rulings." State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383, 453 (1998). We
uphold the trial court's rulings "absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, i.e.,
there has been a clear error of judgment." State v. Perry, 225 N.J. 222, 233
(2016) (quoting State v. Brown, 170 N.J. 138, 147 (2001)). "An appellate court
applying this standard should not substitute its own judgment for that of the trial
court, unless 'the trial court's ruling was so wide of the mark that a manifest
denial of justice resulted.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 484
(1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)). If an abuse of discretion is found,
"we must then determine whether any error found is harmless or requires
reversal." State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567, 581 (2018).
Defendant moved to bar the State from eliciting testimony that suggested
J.S. was drugged by defendant. The court disallowed such evidence by the State
but permitted J.S. to give lay testimony about her perceptions during the
incident.
Lay witness testimony is governed by N.J.R.E. 701, which provides that
a lay "witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences may be admitted
if it (a) is rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) will assist in
understanding the witness' testimony or in determining a fact in issue." To be
admissible, "[t]he witness's perception must 'rest[] on the acquisition of
A-4850-17T4
13
knowledge through use of one's sense of touch, taste, sight, smell or hearing.'"
State v. Hyman, 451 N.J. Super. 429, 442 (App. Div. 2017) (second alteration
in original) (quoting State v. McLean, 205 N.J. 438, 457 (2011)).
The trial court properly barred the State from eliciting lay opinion testimony
from J.S. that she was drugged without tests indicating the presence of an illicit
substance, State v. Bealor, 187 N.J. 574, 590-92 (2006), while permitting her to
testify—as a lay witness—on her own rationally based perceptions, N.J.R.E. 701(a).
As the court also reasoned, such testimony "is helpful in determining a fact in issue,
specifically whether or not J.S. was physically helpless or incapacitated."3 N.J.R.E.
701(b). The testimony was relevant to J.S.'s vulnerability and state of mind and was
limited to her own perceptions as permitted under N.J.R.E. 701(a). It was also
relevant to whether the sexual intercourse was consensual and her ability to
accurately recollect the incident. N.J.R.E. 701(b). The testimony was not unduly
prejudicial under N.J.R.E. 403. We discern no abuse of discretion in allowing such
testimony.
3
"An actor is guilty of aggravated sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual
penetration" on the victim where "the actor knew or should have known" the
victim was "incapable of providing consent" because she was "physically
helpless or incapacitated," or "mentally incapacitated." N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7).
A-4850-17T4
14
B.
We next address the denial of defendant's motion for a mistrial. Defendant
contends the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from J.S. suggesting she
was drugged by defendant and improperly commented on J.S.'s state of
consciousness during her opening argument. Defendant contends the testimony
and these comments planted the suggestion that J.S. was drugged. We disagree.
"The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is entrusted to the sound
discretion of the trial court, which should grant a mistrial only to prevent an
obvious failure of justice." State v. Montgomery, 427 N.J. Super. 403, 406-07
(App. Div. 2012) (quoting State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 205 (1997)). In making
this determination, we give deference to the trial court, "which is in the best
position to gauge the effect of the allegedly prejudicial evidence." Montgomery,
427 N.J. Super. at 407 (quoting Harvey, 151 N.J. at 205).
Here, the court ruled "[t]he State must not elicit testimony from J.S. that
she 'had been drugged.'" The State did not do so. It properly limited its
questions to J.S.'s perceptions regarding her level of intoxication ; ability to
speak or move; and whether she was awake, asleep, or unconscious. This
examination of the victim fell squarely within the questioning permitted by the
A-4850-17T4
15
court and avoided any impermissible lay testimony that J.S. had been drugged.
Notably, defense counsel did not object to J.S.'s testimony concerning her
altered state. We discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court, much less a
manifest injustice.
III.
We next address defendant's argument that the trial court erred by
precluding him from introducing scientific evidence and expert testimony that
J.S. did not have any drugs in her system during the incident. Specifically,
defendant argues he "should have been permitted to introduce the lab report and
expert opinion to argue that no such 'date rape' drugs were found in J.S.'s
system." We find no merit in this argument.
Defendant did not name his toxicology expert, Dr. Safferstein, on his
witness list. He apparently did not serve the State with Dr. Safferstein's final
report. Further, during a pretrial conference held the week before trial, defense
counsel reported to the court that Dr. Safferstein was not being called as a
witness.
Contrary to defendant's argument, the trial court did not preclude defense
counsel from introducing Dr. Safferstein's report or testimony. Instead, it
appears the defense made a strategic choice not to list or call his toxicology
A-4850-17T4
16
expert as a trial witness, electing not to use such evidence. Accordingly, we
discern no error.
IV.
Defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the prosecutor's
comments during her closing, combined with testimony suggesting he "drugged"
J.S., "raise reasonable doubt as to whether the error led the jury to a result it
otherwise might not have reached." We disagree.
During summation, defense counsel advanced the theory that defendant
and J.S. engaged in consensual sexual intercourse and that J.S. manufactured the
rape allegation to "coverup" the fact she "had unprotected sex with [her] first
cousin and [she] cheated on [her] husband." Defense counsel supported this
theory by asserting J.S.'s actions were not indicative of someone who was raped.
He argued, for example, that "common sense tells us, that if someone's raped
they don't have coffee with the person who raped them[,] . . . they don't invite
the rapist back into the bedroom, in just a bra, to help them find their shirt [,] . .
. [and] they don't act normal all morning long."
In response, the prosecutor described defense counsel's comments as
"myths," "stereotypes," and "clichés" regarding how a victim of sexual assault
A-4850-17T4
17
is expected to react. Defense counsel did not object or request that the court
provide a curative instruction.
Although a prosecutor is "afforded considerable leeway" during
summation, they "must refrain from improper methods that result in a wrongful
conviction." State v. Smith, 167 N.J. 158, 177 (2001) (citing State v.Frost, 158
N.J.76, 82-83(1999) (other citations omitted)). Thus, "'not every deviation from
the legal prescriptions governing prosecutorial conduct' requires reversal." State
v. Jackson, 211 N.J. 394, 408-09 (2012) (quoting State v. Williams, 113 N.J.
393, 452 (1988)).
A reviewing court evaluates challenged remarks in the context of the
summation as a whole. State v. Atwater, 400 N.J. Super. 319, 335 (App. Div.
2008) (citing State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 105 (1982)). Reversal is warranted
only if the remarks were "clearly and unmistakably improper" and "substantially
prejudiced the defendant's fundamental right to have a jury fairly evaluate the
merits of his or her defense." State v. Ingram, 196 N.J. 23, 43 (2008) (quoting
State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 495 (2004)). To warrant such a severe remedy, an
appellate court must be convinced the error was "clearly capable of producing
an unjust result." State v. R.B., 183 N.J. 308, 330 (2005) (quoting R. 2:10-2).
"The possibility must be real, one sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to
A-4850-17T4
18
whether [it] led the jury to a verdict it otherwise might not have reached." Ibid.
(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263, 273 (1973)).
Here, the prosecutor's remarks did not exceed the bounds of fair comment
regarding the evidence and the victim's credibility. The remarks appropriately
responded to defense counsel's repeated notion that victims of sexual assault
should act a certain way. See State v. C.H., 264 N.J. Super. 112, 135 (1993)
("Generally, remarks by a prosecutor, made in response to remarks by opposing
counsel, are harmless." (citing State v. DiPaglia, 64 N.J. 288, 297 (1974)).
Further, defense counsel did not object, request a curative instruction, or
otherwise seek to remedy the purported prejudice resulting from the State's
comments until this appeal. See Frost, 158 N.J. at 83-84 (generally, if defense
counsel does not object to the prosecutor's remarks, such "remarks will not be
deemed prejudicial" as "[t]he failure to object suggests that defense counsel did
not believe the remarks were prejudicial at the time they were made" (citation
omitted)).
Viewed in the context of the entire summation, the comments were not
clearly and unmistakably improper and did not substantially prejudice
defendant's right to have the jury fairly evaluate the merits of his defense.
Indeed, defendant was found not guilty of aggravated sexual assault. The
A-4850-17T4
19
prosecutor's closing argument clearly did not cause the jury to conclude that J.S.
had been drugged and thereby rendered "helpless," "incapacitated," or otherwise
"incapable of providing consent." See N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(7).
V.
Finally, we address defendant's argument that his sentence was improper
and excessive. Defendant was sentenced to a ten-year prison term, the maximum
for second-degree sexual assault. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(2).
The court found aggravating factors three and nine. In addition to
reviewing defendant's prior record, it noted defendant did not accept blame for
his conduct or the fact that "what happened was totally inappropriate." The
court found there is need to deter defendant, "who at this point still doesn't
acknowledge his role in this offense," and others, who "need to know that this
behavior is not acceptable."
Defendant argues the court did not sufficiently explain its finding of
aggravating factors three and nine as well as its rejection of mitigating factor
seven. He then contends that even if those aggravating factors are supported by
the record, they should be given minimal weight and do not substantially
outweigh mitigating factor seven.
"[Our] review of sentencing decisions is relatively narrow and is governed
A-4850-17T4
20
by an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 297
(2010). We do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. State v.
Natale, 184 N.J. 458, 489 (2005). A sentence should only be disturbed when
the trial court failed to follow sentencing guidelines, when the aggravating and
mitigating factors are not supported by the evidence, or when the facts and law
show "such a clear error of judgment that it shocks the judicial conscience."
State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 364 (1984) (citing State v. Whitaker, 79 N.J. 503,
512 (1979)); accord State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014).
In weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court must conduct
a qualitative—not quantitative—analysis and provide a "clear explanation" of
how it weighed the factors and applied them to the sentencing range. State v.
Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 73 (2014). "To facilitate meaningful appellate review,
trial judges must explain how they arrived at a particular sentence." Case, 220
N.J. at 65 (citing Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 74; R. 3:21-4(g)). "[I]f the trial court fails
to identify relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, or merely enumerates
them, or forgoes a qualitative analysis, or provides little 'insight into the
sentencing decision,' then the deferential standard will not apply." Ibid. (quoting
State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 363 (1987)).
A-4850-17T4
21
Defendant also contends the trial court improperly found aggravating
factors three and nine by considering his claim of innocence. "The need for
public safety and deterrence increase proportionally with the degree of the
offense." State v. Carey, 168 N.J. 413, 426 (2001) (citing State v. Megargel,
143 N.J. 484, 500 (1996)). While "a defendant's refusal to acknowledge guilt
following a conviction is generally not a germane factor in the sentencing
decision," State v. Marks, 201 N.J. Super. 514, 540 (App. Div. 1985), a denial
of involvement or lack of remorse can be considered in evaluating whether the
defendant is likely to commit another offense, Carey, 168 N.J. at 426-27, and
the need for deterrence, State v. Rivers, 252 N.J. Super. 142, 153-54 (App. Div.
1991). Although defendant professed sorrow for what happened, he maintains
his innocence of sexual assault and lacks remorse for his crime.
While defendant has no prior criminal convictions, his record includes a
domestic violence restraining order in 2003 and violation of a municipal
ordinance in 2012. Further, the Static-99R instrument categorized defendant as
posing an average risk for criminal sexual reoffense. Given these circumstances,
we discern no abuse of discretion in applying aggravating factors three and nine.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by not applying mitigating factor
seven. We disagree. Defendant does not dispute that a final restraining order
A-4850-17T4
22
(FRO) was entered against him under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act
(PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. The sentencing court may consider that
FRO, which is based on a predicate act enumerated in the Criminal Code.
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a). Defendant also violated a municipal ordinance two years
before the sexual assault by urinating in public. Such conduct is not indicative
of leading a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the present
offense. See State v. Buckner, 437 N.J. Super. 8, 38 (App. Div. 2014), aff'd on
other grounds, 223 N.J. 1 (2015) (finding that defendant's municipal
convictions, arrests, and bench warrant during the preceding ten years was
"behavior that requires a finding that he had not led a 'law-abiding life'").
Lastly, defendant contends we should remand for resentencing because
the ten-year prison term is unreasonable. We disagree. The aggravating factors
and lack of mitigating factors were supported by the record, as was the finding
that the aggravating factors substantially outweighed the non-existent mitigating
factors. Where the aggravating factors preponderate, the term should be at the
high end of the sentencing range. Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 73. We discern no basis
to disturb the sentence; it is not manifestly excessive, unduly punitive, or so
clearly unreasonable that it shocks the judicial conscience.
Affirmed.
A-4850-17T4
23