STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF A.L., A Minor

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1686-04T41686-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN

THE INTEREST OF A.L.,

A Minor.

 

Submitted: January 25, 2006 - Decided February 8, 2006

Before Judges Fall and Yannotti.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Middlesex County, Docket Number FJ-12-0401-04.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant A.L. (Seon Jeong Lee, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this juvenile delinquency case, A.L. appeals from his adjudication of delinquency on a charge which, if committed by an adult, would constitute fourth-degree criminal mischief, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-3b(2). We affirm. The following analysis informs our decision.

On August 8, 2002, a vehicle owned by Daniel E. Sabosik, 86 Pulaski Street, Carteret, was vandalized by the splashing of two different colors of paint on the vehicle while it was parked at the corner of Pulaski and Lowell Streets. The vehicle is a 1988 Lincoln Town car with a leather roof. Sabosik was able to remove the paint from the body of the vehicle, but not from the white leather roof. He obtained an estimate for $848 to replace the roof; Sabosik had purchased the vehicle for $2,000 two years prior to the incident.

Sabosik reported the incident to the police; however the police were unable to determine the perpetrator. About a week later, Sabosik found traces of the paint that had been thrown on his car on the roadway, and was able to follow those paint traces back to a garage. After speaking with some neighbors, he determined that a boy named "A" "hung out" at that garage. About two weeks later he approached and spoke with "A," who admitted that he and some friends had thrown the paint onto Sabosik's car. "A" pleaded with Sabosik not to tell his parents and stated "he would take care of it." However, after time passed without "A" paying for the damage, Sabosik stated he

spoke with the grandmother on a few occasions, ["A"] several times, I spoke with the father, I finally met him at the grandmother's house on [P] Street and I spoke to the mother once on the phone, there didn't [seem to be] any other way to go but to go to court.

When the damages were still not remedied nearly a year later, on July 8, 2003, Sabosik filed the subject juvenile delinquency complaint against A.L., alleging an act of criminal mischief.

The matter was tried in the Family Part on January 15, 2004. During his direct testimony, when asked to identify "A," pointing to A.L., Sabosik stated "I believe that's . . . the ["A"] that I was talking to. Kids change a lot in a year and a half." On cross-examination of Sabosik, the following colloquy ensued:

Q. Now when you were talking to the prosecutor you stated that you believe that that's the ["A"] that you were talking to. Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you're not sure today if this is the ["A"] that you spoke to over a year ago?

A. I can't say I'm a hundred percent sure because kids when they're teenagers . . . I have five sons with my wife, they grow a lot in a year and a half, you know? I'm pretty sure it's him but could I say a hundred percent sure? I couldn't say that.

Sabosik also testified that the color of A.L.'s hair was similar to the "A" who had admitted to committing the act of criminal mischief. On re-direct, Sabosik was further questioned, as follows:

Q. You brought a complaint in this matter, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And you brought it against [A.L.], right?

A. Correct.

Q. Why [A.L.]?

A. He's the one that did the damage and he admitted it to me on several occasions.

* * * *

Q. . . . And you spoke to his parents, right?

A. I spoke to the mother on the phone and I spoke to the father in person.

Q. Oh, you spoke to his father in person?

A. Correct.

Q. This . . . person you came to . . . speak to, you learned he was ["A's"] father?

A. Right.

After considering the testimony adduced by the State, and considering the closing arguments of counsel, the trial judge noted that the primary issue was identification, and stated in pertinent part:

And I have to say that the victim . . . seemed to be testifying very candidly and truthfully. And I know he did say that young people change [in] over a year and a half and maybe they do, but . . . what I interpret he was doing was, he's not a stupid man. I think he understood the importance of the identification. And I don't think he wanted to identify him.

But that's the way I interpret his reluctance. . . . [T]hese people live in the same community, live a couple of blocks away or a couple of houses away. And that's the way I interpret his . . . reluctance.

So I find that the identification is sufficient and I'm convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that [A.L.] did, in fact, throw the white paint and, in fact, . . . that he did admit to the victim that he had done that and that [A.L.] is the one who the victim spoke to that day.

Following the adjudication of delinquency, A.L.'s motion for a new trial was denied by an order issued on April 16, 2004.

On appeal, A.L. contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the testimony identifying A.L. as the perpetrator of the delinquent act was insufficient to satisfy the State's burden of proof. We disagree.

The testimony of Sabosik, as credited by the trial judge, provided sufficient support for the adjudication of delinquency. The qualification by Sabosik that he was not "a hundred percent sure" of his in-court identification of A.L. did not preclude a finding of delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt. Sabosik's identification was corroborated by the fact that his first name is "A;" the color of his hair is similar to the person with whom Sabosik spoke; the paint was traced to the garage at the location where "A" "hung out;" and that fact that Sabosik spoke with both of A.L.'s parents and his grandmother concerning the incident. See State v. Swed, 255 N.J. Super. 228, 247 (App. Div. 1992) (testimony that the defendant resembles the perpetrator admissible and sufficient to support conviction when considered with other evidence); State v. Lutz, 165 N.J. Super. 278, 291 (App. Div. 1979) (testimony that a defendant looks like or resembles the perpetrator may be sufficient to support a conviction when considered with other evidence).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

6

A-1686-04T4

RECORD IMPOUNDED

February 8, 2006