STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD G. KOPF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4618-08T44618-08T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EDWARD G. KOPF,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________________________________

 

Argued April 27, 2010 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Simonelli.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Indictment

No. 07-04-0659.

Peter R. Willis argued the cause for appellant (Willis & Young, attorneys; Mr. Willis, on the brief).

Noelle V. Fiorentino, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Edward J. De Fazio, Hudson County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Fiorentino, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was indicted for insurance fraud, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4.6; attempted theft by deception, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4; and official misconduct, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2. In addition, defendant was charged with the disorderly persons offense of filing a false report to law enforcement authorities, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:28-4(b)(1).

A jury acquitted defendant of the charged indictable offenses. However, the trial court found defendant guilty of filing a false report to law enforcement and fined him $500.

Defendant's conviction was based on a report he made to the Jersey City Police Department on the evening of January 1, 2007 that his car had been stolen. According to the officers who investigated the alleged theft, defendant told them that he had parked the car across the street from his mother's residence earlier that evening. In fact, the car had been found abandoned by Pennsylvania police officers approximately two months before defendant reported it stolen.

On appeal, defendant presents the following arguments:

THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION FOR FILING FALSE REPORTS SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE JURY'S ACQUITTAL OF ALL INDICTABLE OFFENSES IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S DECISION AND TESTIMONY ADDUCED AT TRIAL.

A. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN

APPLYING THE EVIDENCE AT

TRIAL TO THE DISORDERLY

PERSONS OFFENSE.

B. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN

DETERMINING THE CREDIBILITY

OF THE STATE'S WITNESSES.

We reject this argument and affirm defendant's conviction substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Theemling's April 13, 2009 oral opinion. The State's case against defendant was based substantially on Officer Joseph Doyle's testimony that defendant told his partner and him that he had parked the car across the street from his mother's house on the night defendant reported it stolen. Judge Theemling found that testimony credible and defendant's testimony incredible. We accept these credibility findings, which are amply supported by the record including the stolen vehicle report signed by defendant. See State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 470-71 (1999).

 
There is no inconsistency between defendant's acquittal of the charged indictable offenses, which were based on his alleged false statements to his insurance company that his car had been stolen, and his conviction of falsely reporting to the Jersey City Police Department that he had driven the car on the day he reported it stolen. Even if defendant truly believed his car had been stolen, he could have falsely stated to the Jersey City police officers that he had last driven it earlier that day, rather than several months earlier, in order to encourage the officers to undertake an investigation.

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-4618-08T4

May 6, 2010