STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN MOHR

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5081-04T45081-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHN MOHR,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________

 

Submitted May 2, 2006 - Decided June 1, 2006

Before Judges Lefelt and Seltzer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of

New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal

Part, Morris County, 04-04-0472.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender,

attorney for appellant (William Welaj,

Designated Counsel, of counsel and

on the brief).

Michael M. Rubbinaccio, Morris County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent

(Joseph Connor, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant was tried, and convicted, by a jury on a charge of fourth-degree criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3b. He was also convicted of a disorderly persons charge of simple assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a, after a trial before Judge John J. Harper, conducted simultaneously with the jury trial. See

R. 3:15-3(a)(2).

Defendant was sentenced on the criminal sexual contact charge to a two-year probationary term, conditioned upon 364 days in the County jail, and to a concurrent 180 day term on the simple assault offense. Plaintiff appeals from his convictions and urges the following four points:

POINT I

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL AS A RESULT OF TESTIMONY GRATUITOUSLY VOLUNTEERED BY A POLICE OFFICER CONNECTING THE DEFENDANT WITH PRIOR CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

POINT II

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL ARISING OUT OF AN INAPPROPRIATE QUESTION POSED TO DEFENSE COUNSEL BY DETECTIVE CLARK DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION.

POINT III

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE STATE TO ELICIT TESTIMONY FROM THE VICTIM'S MOTHER AS AN EXCITED UTTERANCE PURSUANT TO N.J.R.E. 803(c)(2).

POINT IV

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL AS A RESULT OF ITS INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY FOLLOWING DEFENSE COUNSEL'S SUMMATION.

We have analyzed this record in light of the arguments advanced by the parties and the applicable law and have concluded that none of the issues raised has sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We are in substantial agreement with the reasons given by Judge Harper for each of the rulings of which defendant complains.

Affirmed.

 
 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-5081-04T4

June 1, 2006