STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SEAN COURTER
Annotate this CaseNOT 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-3481-15T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SEAN COURTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Argued January 18, 2018 – Decided September 17, 2018
Before Judges Simonelli, Rothstadt and Gooden
Brown.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 14-01-0314.
Charles J. Uliano argued the cause for appellant
(Chamlin, Rosen, Uliano & Witherington, attorneys;
Charles J. Uliano, of counsel and on the briefs; Andrew
T. Walsh, on the briefs).
Kayla E. Rowe, Special Deputy Attorney
General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause
for respondent (Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex
County Prosecutor, attorney; Kayla E. Rowe, of
counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Following a jury trial, defendant Sean Courter, a former police officer,
was convicted of second-degree conspiracy to commit official misconduct,
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 (count one); second-degree official
misconduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 (count two); third-degree tampering with public
records or information, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7(a)(2) (count three); fourth-degree
falsifying or tampering with records, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4(a) (count four); and
fourth-degree false swearing, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2 (count five).
At sentencing, Judge Michael L. Ravin merged count one with count two
and sentenced Courter on count two to a five-year term of imprisonment with a
five-year period of parole ineligibility, and imposed a concurrent three-year term
on count three, and concurrent nine-month terms on counts four and five.
On appeal, Courter raises the following contentions:
Point I
THE CONVICTION MUST BE OVERTURNED
BECAUSE THE JURY VERDICT WAS AGAINST
THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
A. STANDARD
B. CONSPIRACY
C. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
A-3481-15T3
2
D. UNDERLYING OFFENSES
Point II
THE CONVICTION MUST BE OVERTURNED DUE
TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT. (Not Raised
Below).
A. APPEAL TO RACE
B. MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS/LAW
1. ELUDING
2. SUFFICIENCY OF CRIMINAL CHARGES
Point III
THE CONVICTION MUST BE OVERTURNED
BECAUSE THE FAILURE OF THE COURT TO
CHARGE THE JURY AS TO THE REQUIREMENT
TO COMPLY WITH AN OFFICER'S DIRECTION.
(Not Raised Below).
Point IV
IMPROPER SENTENCE. (Not Raised Below).
We reject these contentions and affirm.
The Underlying Incident
On June 7, 2012, Police Officers Sean Courter and Albert Sutterlin from
the Township of Bloomfield Police Department (BPD) responded to a home on
West Passaic Avenue on a report of a domestic violence incident between
A-3481-15T3
3
Marcus Jeter and his girlfriend, Ms. T. Killian. In his incident report, Courter
gave the following version of what happened:
Responded to . . . West Passaic Ave. on a report of a
Domestic. Upon arrival Officer Sutterlin and I rang the
doorbell to the residence. While ringing the doorbell a
black male, later identified as Mr. Marcus Jeter, stuck
his head out the second floor window and stated, "Come
and get me". A female, later identified as Ms. [T]
Killian, then opened the front. While speaking with
Ms. Killian, the girlfriend, she stated that her boyfriend,
Mr. Jeter, just jumped out the back window. Officer
Sutterlin and I heard an engine starting from the rear of
the residence. A vehicle . . . came up the driveway at a
high rate of speed. I stated to the driver, Mr. Jeter, to
put the vehicle in park and give me his identification.
Mr. Jeter ignored my order to put the vehicle in park
and stated, "I did not do anything wrong". I spoke to
Mr. Jeter through the front passenger side window,
which was rolled down. As Mr. Jeter was speaking, I
smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage
emanating from his breath and his eyes being
bloodshot. In further observing the vehicle I observed
the rear driver tire to be flat. I asked Mr. Jeter again to
put the vehicle in park and give me his identification.
Mr. Jeter refused and drove off at a high rate of speed,
making a left onto West Passaic Ave. I ran to my
vehicle and advised Central Communications and
[Lieutenant Sean] Schwindt that I was pursuing this
vehicle. I activated my emergency lights and sirens and
was able to view Mr. Jeter's vehicle make a right onto
Broad St. from West Passaic Ave. Upon reaching
Broad St., I observed Mr. Jeter's vehicle make a right
onto Parkway South. I was able to catch up to Mr.
Jeter's vehicle on the Parkway South. I pulled behind
Mr. Jeter's vehicle, who continued to drive on the
Parkway South. At this time, I observed the driver-side
A-3481-15T3
4
rear tire to be sparking, due to that Mr. Jeter was driving
on the rim. After approximately 1,000 feet, Mr. Jeter's
vehicle became disabled, due to that the driver-side rear
rim was on its side. Mr. Jeter's vehicle came to rest at
mile marker 154.1 on the Parkway South. I exited my
vehicle with my handgun drawn on Mr. Jeter, who was
still in the vehicle with the engine running. I gave Mr.
Jeter multiple commands to shut off the vehicle and
show me his hands. Mr. Jeter refused and stated "Fuck
You, I did not do anything". Officer Sutterlin then
arrived on scene. At this time I proceeded to the drivers
side door and attempted to open it. The door was
locked. I again gave Mr. Jeter verbal commands to
open the door. Mr. Jeter refused and stated "Fuck You"
and then rolled up his driver side window. I advised
Central Communications that Mr. Jeter was refusing to
exit the vehicle. Officer Trinidad arrived on scene and
blocked Mr. Jeter's vehicle in from the front, due to that
Mr. Jeter refused to turn off his vehicle. I again gave
Mr. Jeter verbal commands to unlock the driver side
door and exit the vehicle. Mr. Jeter refused. I then used
my ASP, which is an expandable baton, to break Mr.
Jeter's driver side window. When the window was
broke, I gave Mr. Jeter verbal commands to open the
door. Mr. Jeter refused. While Officer Sutterlin and
Officer Trinidad stood by, I reached into the driver side
window and opened the door. While reaching into the
broken window, my left forearm was scraped by the
broken glass. I was able to open the door. I advised
Mr. Jeter to take off his seatbelt. Mr. Jeter refused. I
reached over Mr. Jeter and attempted to take off Mr.
Jeter's seatbelt. While attempting to take off Mr. Jeter's
seatbelt, Mr. Jeter began grabbing onto my holster in an
attempt to get my handgun. I advised Mr. Jeter multiple
times to stop resisting. Officer Trinidad, Officer
Sutterlin and I then attempted to take Mr. Jeter to the
ground, at which time Mr. Jeter struck Officer Trinidad
in the face with his fist. We were then able to take Mr.
A-3481-15T3
5
Jeter to the ground. While on the ground Mr. Jeter put
his hands underneath his body in an attempt not to be
handcuffed. I advised Mr. Jeter multiple times to stop
resisting and give me his hands. Officer Trinidad and I
were able to handcuff Mr. Jeter. Mr. Jeter was then
placed into patrol vehicle 4.
[(Emphasis added).]
Courter also filled out a "Bloomfield Police Department DVD Discovery Form,"
which indicated that both his and Trinidad's patrol vehicles were equipped with
video cameras, the cameras were on during the incident, and the hard drives
were removed from the patrol vehicles after the incident and placed into
evidence.
In his incident report, Sutterlin gave the following version of the incident:
Responded to . . . West Passaic Avenue on a report of a
[d]omestic. Upon arrival, Mr. Jeter opened an upstairs
window and yelled: "Come and get me!" This officer
then rang the doorbell until Ms. Killian responded. Ms.
Killian stated that she just wanted Mr. Jeter to leave for
the evening and that when she had gone to the door, Mr.
Jeter jumped out the back window. Mr. Jeter was
stopped at the end of the driveway as he was trying to
leave. Officer Courter requested Mr. Jeter's license and
at this time, Mr. Jeter sped off, south on West Passaic
Avenue. Mr. Jeter turned right onto Broad Street into
the McDonald's [p]arking lot and then onto Garden
State Parkway South. At mile marker 154.1, Mr. Jeter
pulled over because his left rear tire had gone flat and
the rim had broken. Mr. Jeter was ordered out of his
vehicle and at this time, Mr. Jeter locked all the doors
and rolled up all windows, refusing to come out. At
A-3481-15T3
6
this time, Lieutenant Schwindt acknowledged to use all
necessary force to effect an arrest. At this time, the
driver's window was broken. Mr. Jeter refused to take
off his seat belt and while Officer Courter was reaching
over him, Mr. Jeter attempted to gain control of Officer
Courter's firearm. Mr. Jeter was then extricated from
the vehicle and ordered to the ground. At this time, Mr.
Jeter refused to submit to arrest and necessary force was
used to effect an arrest.
[(Emphasis added).]
Criminal Charges Filed Against Jeter
On June 7, 2012, Courter signed complaint warrants against Jeter charging
him with second-degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2B; third-degree resisting
arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(3)(a); second-degree attempting to disarm a police
officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-11(a); and obstructing administration of law or other
governmental function, a disorderly persons offence, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a).1
On September 19, 2012, a grand jury indicted Jeter for second-degree
eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b); second-degree attempting to disarm a police
officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-11(a); third-degree aggravated assault on a law
1
Courter also issued motor vehicle summonses to Jeter for driving while license
suspended, N.J.S.A. 39:3-40; reckless driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-96; refusal to submit to an
alcohol test, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2; driving while intoxicated, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50; failure to
comply with directions of officers, N.J.S.A. 39:4-57; driving while intoxicated 1000 feet
from a school, N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.6; and creating risk of an accident, N.J.S.A. 39:4-56.
A-3481-15T3
7
enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties, N.J.S.A. 2C:12- -
1(b)(5)(a); and third-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(3)(a).
The Internal Affairs Investigation
Prior to his indictment, on June 12, 2012, Jeter filed a complaint against
Trinidad and Courter with the Essex County Prosecutor's Office (ECPO),
alleging they physically assaulted him. Jeter asserted that the officers turned on
their police lights indicating for him to pull over, he pulled over, and "the cops
approached [his] vehicle . . . beat him up and arrested him, never informing him
why he was pulled over." He also alleged that a police vehicle crashed into the
front of his vehicle. In response to Jeter's complaint, the ECPO contacted the
BPD's Internal Affairs Division (IAD), which began an investigation.
In an interview with Lieutenant Michael J. Cofone of the IAD, Jeter said
that he stopped his vehicle on the Garden State Parkway South after he saw the
police lights and his tire started smoking. Once he stopped, he saw police
officers on both sides of his vehicle pointing their guns at him saying "get the
fuck out of the car." As soon as he saw their weapons, he put his hands up and
complied with their instructions to turn off his vehicle. At that point, a police
vehicle (driven by Trinidad) came from Garden State Parkway North and
crashed into the front of his vehicle. After the officer on the left side of his
A-3481-15T3
8
vehicle broke his window, the officers "opened his door and punched him in the
face, he was caught off guard, the [o]fficers . . . tried to take off his seatbelt and
'elbowed [him] in the face two times.'" After the officers removed his seatbelt,
"they slammed [him] to the ground . . . handcuffed [him,] . . . patted [him] down
and put [him] in the police car." During the encounter he asked to call his
lawyer. As a result of the incident, he suffered a sprained wrist and cuts and
bruises on his left arm, right arm, wrist, chest, and face.
Cofone obtained Courter's and Sutterlin's incident reports, the video
recording from only Courter's patrol vehicle, and radio and telephone
recordings. He consulted with Detective Andrew Zachares and was told the
video recording from Trinidad's patrol vehicle was not available.
Cofone instructed Trinidad, Courter, and Sutterlin to submit
administrative reports of the incident. In his administrative report, Trinidad
stated:
On Thursday June 07, 2012[,] at approximately 00[:]14
hours[,] I was in marked unit #4 patrolling in my zone.
Officer Sutterlin and Officer Courter received a call . .
. that there was a domestic [violence incident] in
progress at . . . West Passaic Avenue. I was originally
dispatched by [C]ommunications[,] then I was told to
disregard and resume patrol in my zone. Several
minutes later Officer Courter relayed to
Communications that [Jeter] . . . had fled the scene at a
high rate of speed. . . . At this time I advised Central
A-3481-15T3
9
that I would be making my way to the scene. I activated
my emergency over head lights and sirens and began
making my way to the scene when I heard Officer
Courter's next transmission that [Jeter] . . . had gotten
onto Parkway South and [Courter] continued the
pursuit until [Jeter] finally pulled over at mile marker
154.1. I asked Central for authorization to go onto
Parkway North so that I could expedite my arrival to
assist Officer[s] Courter and . . . Sutterlin. Lieutenant
Schwindt gave the approval and I took Parkway North
to the motor vehicle stop. When I reached their
location[,] I carefully crossed the black top median
yielding to traffic. When I saw that no traffic was
coming[,] I drove across [with the] lights and sirens still
activated and parked my vehicle . . . bumper to bumper
with . . . [Jeter's] vehicle so that he would not attempt
to flee or use his vehicle as [a] weapon . . . . When I
exited my vehicle[,] I observed Officer[s] Courter and
. . . Sutterlin giving multiple commands . . . to [Jeter]
to "[e]xit the vehicle . . . ." I immediately began giving
verbal commands to . . . [Jeter] to "[e]xit the vehicle . .
. [as he was] under arrest[.]" [Jeter] . . . .refused
multiple verbal commands from Officer Courter and
myself. At this time I verbally advised . . . [Jeter] that
if he did not exit the vehicle we were going to breach
the window to effect the arrest. [Jeter] . . . ignored my
commands again stating[,] . . . "Fuck off![] I didn't do
shit man[.]" Officer Courter then attempted to open the
driver side door but the door was locked. Officer
Courter then used his asp (expandable baton) and
successfully breached the window. Multiple verbal
commands were given to . . . [Jeter] to unlock the door
and exit his vehicle, [but] he refused. Officer Courter
reached into the driver side window and opened the
door. Officer Courter ordered . . . [Jeter] to take off his
seat belt and exit the vehicle. [Jeter] . . . refused to
comply. Officer Courter reached over . . . [Jeter] to take
off his seat belt, at which time I observed . . . [Jeter]
A-3481-15T3
10
grabbing Officer Courter[']s service weapon which he
had holstered on his right hip. Officer Courter yelled[,]
. . . "He's grabbing my gun . . . [.]" Officer Courter gave
. . . [Jeter] multiple[] commands to let go of his gun and
stop resisting. At that moment I was in fear for my
partner[']s life and[] my own. Officer Sutterlin and I
proceeded to grab . . . Jeter's hands off [of] Officer
Courter's gun. Officer Courter was able to remove
[Jeter's] seatbelt . . . . [When] attempting to extradite
. . . [Jeter] from the vehicle, [Jeter] struck me in the face
with a closed fist. After struggling with [Jeter,] we
finally managed to take him to the ground. On the
ground . . . [Jeter] continued flailing his arms and then
plac[ed] his hands underneath his body. I ordered him
to . . . [s]top resisting . . . [and g]ive me [his] hands[.]"
And he refused. After struggling with . . . Jeter we
finally were able to grab his hands and place him under
arrest.
[(Emphasis added).]
Courter's administrative report mirrored his incident report, and he added:
I had to reach over Mr. Jeter[] to remove his seatbelt,
but as I was reaching over Mr. Jeter began grabbing
onto my holster attempting to remove my handgun. I
was scared from my life. I stated he is going for my
gun. Officer Trinidad and Officer Sutterlin
immediately came to my aid and restrained Mr. Jeter's
hands from removing my handgun. Mr. Jeter continued
to resist our efforts to arrest him. We stated multiple
times to stop resisting. Mr. Jeter continued to flail his
arms and body in an attempt not to be removed from the
vehicle.
[(Emphasis added).]
A-3481-15T3
11
Sutterlin provided more details of the incident in his administrative report,
and added the following:
At this time, Officer Courter stated that Mr. Jeter was
attempting to take Officer Courter's weapon. At this
time, this officer and Officer Trinidad reached in to
assist Officer Courter and extricate Mr. Jeter during
which time Mr. Jeter struck Officer Trinidad in the face.
Mr. Jeter was ordered several times to stop resisting,
but Mr. Jeter continued to fight with the officers. Mr.
Jeter was brought to the ground and continued to resist
by putting his hands underneath his body.
[(Emphasis added).]
Cofone found that Jeter's conduct and behavior precipitated the event, he
lacked credibility, was uncooperative, actively resisted the officers' attempt to
arrest him, attempted to grab Courter's weapon, and punched Trinidad in the
face. Cofone exonerated the officers, concluding the incident occurred, but the
officers' actions were justified, legal, and proper. On August 1, 2012, Cofone
notified Jeter that the investigation indicate[d] that the officers followed the
appropriate department policies and procedures.
On April 3, 2013, the case was reopened after Michael Morris of the ECPO
notified Cofone of the existence of the video recording from Trinidad's patrol
vehicle, which showed a very different account of the incident than what
A-3481-15T3
12
Trinidad, Courter and Sutterlin had reported. In his investigation report, Cofone
stated:
Chief Goul, Sgt. Sierchio and I reviewed the
recording; the recording provides an almost
unobstructed view of the passenger compartment of Mr.
Jeter's vehicle. Trinidad responds from the GSP north
bound side, crosses the grass median and the south
bound lanes of traffic and strikes Mr. Jeter's vehicle at
appx. 10-12 mph, Jeter immediately raises his hands;
Trinidad exits his vehicle and runs around the
passenger side of Jeter's vehicle. P.O. Courter can be
seen at the driver side of [Jeter's] vehicle striking his
window with an object, the window appears to then
explode, and Courter then clears the broken glass from
the window area. Courter then leans into the passenger
compartment and opens the driver side door. As this
occurs Jeter's hands remain up, Courter then appears to
grab Jeter's left hand/arm as Jeter's right arm is still
raised and remains [raised]. Jeter then leans toward the
passenger side and his left arm becomes free and he
raises his left arm along with his right arm; both of his
hands remain raised the entire time. Courter is in the
passenger compartment of [Jeter's] vehicle. Even when
Courter appears to grab Jeter in a bear hug both of
[Jeter's] hands remain raised; at no time can Jeter be
seen grabbing in any area of Courter[']s body as his
hands remain raised at the vehicle[']s passenger
compartment roof. At no time does either P.O. Trinidad
or P.O. Sutterlin enter the passenger compartment;
additionally Trinidad does not appear on camera after
he runs from his vehicle to Jeter's [vehicle] subsequent
to his arrival at the scene. While Courter was leaning
in the passenger compartment Sutterlin appears at the
passenger side window and appears to strike the
passenger side window but it does not break, he then
walks to the rear of Jeter's vehicle and is not seen again.
A-3481-15T3
13
At no time does Jeter appear to punch Trinidad in the
face.
Chief Goul, Sgt. Sierchio and I viewed the
recording several more times and did not view any
attempt by Jeter to grab Courter in any way and at no
time can Jeter be seen punching Trinidad. At no time
do Sutterlin and Trinidad appear in the passenger
compartment of Jeter's vehicle. There is no struggle by
Trinidad or Sutterlin to remove Jeter's "hands" from
Courter's weapon. At no time during the recorded
events of this incident does a Supervisor respond to the
scene of Jeter's arrest.
[(Emphasis added).]
Cofone concluded from his review of the video that Courter lied in his two
reports by falsely reporting: Jeter grabbed his gun; Trinidad and Sutterlin came
to his aid and restrained Jeter's hands from removing the gun; Jeter flailed his
arms and body "when in reality Jeter ha[d] his hands up in a gesture of surrender
the entire time[;]" and Jeter struck Trinidad in the face with a closed fist. Cofone
noted the video showed that Jeter's hands remained up as Courter pulled him
from his vehicle, and Courter pulled him from the vehicle and threw him to the
ground in one motion.
Cofone concluded that Trinidad lied in his administrative report about
Jeter's actions and that Jeter physically assaulted him. Cofone noted the video
showed that after Jeter was handcuffed and secured, Trinidad picked him up and
A-3481-15T3
14
threw him onto the front passenger hood of Trinidad's patrol vehicle so hard that
Jeter's feet came off the ground. The video also showed that Trinidad punched
Jeter so hard in the head that his punch careened off Jeter and struck Courter in
the face. Cofone also concluded that Sutterlin lied in his two reports that: Jeter
tried to take Courter's gun; he and Trinidad assisted Courter; Jeter punched
Trinidad in the face; and Jeter struggled.
Following an investigation by the ECPO, all charges against Jeter were
dismissed. Specifically, the ECPO found from its review of the video recording
from Trinidad's patrol vehicle "that [Jeter's] car was not in [the] sight line [of
Courter's patrol vehicle] until shortly before [Jeter's] car was disabled and pulled
to the shoulder of the [Garden State Parkway]. Therefore it would be impossible
to impute to [Jeter] the knowledge that he was being pursued by police. For this
reason the charge of [e]luding should be dismissed."
The State's Evidence
Trinidad, Courter and Sutterlin were subsequently criminally charged.
Sutterlin pled guilty to fourth-degree falsifying or tampering with records and
agreed to testify against Trinidad and Courter.
Sutterlin testified that Trinidad and Courter were waiting for him at police
headquarters when he returned there one or two hours after the incident. He
A-3481-15T3
15
asked them what happened in order to provide a correct sequence of events, they
told him what happened and what to write, and he wrote what they said in his
report. Courter told Sutterlin that Jeter grabbed for his gun, but Sutte rlin
admitted he did not see this or see Jeter strike Trinidad. He admitted that he
spoke to Trinidad and Courter several times about the incident before writing
his administrative report to make sure he had the correct sequence of events. He
also admitted his two reports were false, he knew they were false, he did not
write them himself, and he was aided or helped by Trinidad and Courter.
Jeter testified that he did not elude the police, resist arrest, attempt to
disarm Courter, or hit Trinidad. The video recording from Trinidad's patrol
vehicle, which was played several times to the jury, corroborated Jeter's
testimony and showed his hands were raised in a surrender gesture, and Trinidad
assaulted him.
I.
Courter contends in Point I that the jury verdict was against the weight of
the evidence; however, he did not file a motion for a new trial on this issue.
"[T]he issue of whether a jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence
shall not be cognizable on appeal unless a motion for a new trial on that ground
was made in the trial court." R. 2:10-1. While this court need not entertain a
A-3481-15T3
16
weight of the evidence argument in the absence of a new trial motion, it may
nevertheless choose to do so in the interest of justice. State v. Smith, 262 N.J.
Super. 487, 511 (App. Div. 1993); Pressler & Veriero, Current N.J. Court Rules,
cmt. 3 on R. 2:10-1 (2018). We address this issue in the interests of justice and
for the sake of completeness.
"In considering whether a jury verdict was against the weight of the
evidence, our task is to decide whether 'it clearly appears that there was a
miscarriage of justice under the law.'" State v. Smith, 262 N.J. Super. 487, 512
(App. Div. 1993) (quoting R. 2:10-1). We "must sift through the evidence 'to
determine whether any trier of fact could rationally have found beyond a
reasonable doubt that the essential elements of the crime were present.'" Ibid.
(quoting State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 96 (1982)). However, "[we] may not
overturn the verdict 'merely because [we] might have found otherwise upon the
same evidence.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Johnson, 203 N.J. Super. 127, 134 (App.
Div. 1985)). "[Our] intervention is warranted only to correct an 'injustice
resulting from a plain and obvious failure of the jury to perform its function.'"
Ibid. (quoting Johnson, 203 N.J. Super. at 134). "Where the jury's verdict was
grounded on its assessment of witness credibility, a reviewing court may not
intercede, absent clear evidence on the face of the record that the jury was
A-3481-15T3
17
mistaken or prejudiced." Ibid. (citing State v. Haines, 20 N.J. 438, 446-47
(1956)). Applying these standards, we discern no reason to grant Courter a new
trial.
Conspiracy to Commit Official Misconduct
N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a) provides:
A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or
persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of
promoting or facilitating its commission he:
(1) Agrees with such other person or persons that
they or one or more of them will engage in conduct
which constitutes such crime or an attempt or
solicitation to commit such crime; or
(2) Agrees to aid such other person or persons in the
planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt
or solicitation to commit such crime.
"[T]he agreement to commit a specific crime is at the heart of a conspiracy
charge." State v. Samuels, 189 N.J. 236, 245 (2007). "It is the agreement that is
pivotal." Id. at 246.
"A conspiracy conviction does not turn on 'doing the act, nor effecting the
purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor
in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement [.]"
State v. Ball, 141 N.J. 142, 178 (1995) (alteration in original) (quoting State v.
Carbone, 10 N.J. 329, 337 (1952)). Likewise, "mere knowledge, acquiescence,
A-3481-15T3
18
or approval of the substantive offense without an agreement to cooperate, is not
enough to establish one as a participant in a conspiracy." State v. Abrams, 256 N.J. Super. 390, 410 (App. Div. 1992). "It is the agreement that is pivotal."
Samuels, 189 N.J. at 246.
In determining whether the scheme or agreement was formed, "[j]uries are
routinely instructed that they may draw logical inferences from the evidence
presented to them and that circumstantial evidence is of as equal weight as direct
evidence. Courts have regularly held that conspiracy may be proven through
circumstantial evidence." State v. Cagno, 211 N.J. 488, 512 (2012). However,
"[t]here must be intentional participation with the purpose of furthering the goal
of committing the crime." Cannel, New Jersey Criminal Code Annotated, cmt.
5 on N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 (2010). Further, the essential elements of conspiracy must
be evaluated in terms of the underlying offense. Samuels, 189 N.J. at 246-47.
Courter argues the State failed to prove the elements of conspiracy, as
there was no evidence that he and Trinidad entered into an agreement between
themselves or with Sutterlin to falsify their reports.
Contrary to this argument, there was sufficient evidence on which the jury
could rationally have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Courter formed an
agreement with Trinidad and Sutterlin to falsify their police reports. Sutterlin
A-3481-15T3
19
testified that Courter and Trinidad were waiting for him at police headquarters
when he returned after the incident and told him what happened and what to
write in his incident report. Sutterlin also testified that he spoke with Courter
and Trinidad several times before writing his administrative report to make sure
he had the sequence of events correct. From this evidence, the jury could
reasonably infer that the officers conspired to falsify their reports in order to
exonerate Courter and Trinidad of any wrongdoing toward Jeter and substantiate
the false criminal charges brought against him.
In addition, the three officers' reports provided sufficient circumstantial
evidence on which the jury could rationally have found beyond a reasonable
doubt that Courter conspired with Trinidad and Sutterlin to falsify their police
reports. The version of events contained in the officers' reports are strikingly
similar. They use substantially the same language in describing the events, and
they reported a substantially similar sequence of events not seen on the video
recording from Trinidad's patrol vehicle. Thus, Sutterlin's testimony, the police
reports, and the video recording from Trinidad's patrol vehicle could lead a
reasonable jury to logically infer that Courter conspired with Trinidad and
Sutterlin to falsify their reports.
A-3481-15T3
20
Official Misconduct
N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2 provides, in pertinent part:
A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when,
with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another
or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:
a. He commits an act relating to his office but
constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official
functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he
is committing such act in an unauthorized manner[.]
Courter conceded he was a public servant and that the act in question related to
his public office. Thus, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
he committed an act relating to his office knowing it was unauthorized or
committed the act in an unauthorized manner knowing the manner was
unauthorized, and whether his purpose in so acting was to benefit himself or
another or to injure or deprive another of a benefit. See Model Jury Charges
(Criminal), "Official Misconduct (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2)" (2006).
"The commission of the act . . . must constitute an unauthorized exercise
of [the public servant's] official functions. The public servant must know that
the act . . . was unauthorized or that the act . . . was done in an unauthorized
manner." Ibid.
An act is "unauthorized" if it is committed in
breach of some prescribed duty of the public servant’s
office. This duty must be official and non-
A-3481-15T3
21
discretionary, imposed upon the public servant by law
(such as statute, municipal charter or ordinance) or
clearly inherent in the nature of his/her office. The duty
to act must be so clear that the public servant is on
notice as to the standards that he/she must meet. In
other words, the failure to act must be more than a
failure to exhibit good judgment. In addition, the State
must prove that (defendant) knew of the existence of
his/her non-discretionary duty to act prior to the
incident in question. Not every unauthorized act
committed by a public servant rises to the level of
official misconduct; an unauthorized act amounts to
official misconduct only if the public servant knew at
the time that his/her conduct was unauthorized and
unlawful.
[Ibid.]
"Benefit means a gain or advantage, or anything regarded by the beneficiary as
a gain or advantage, including a pecuniary benefit or a benefit to any other
person or entity in whose welfare he/she is interested." Ibid. The benefit does
not have to be pecuniary, but could amount to enjoyment or self-gratification.
State v. Quezada, 402 N.J. Super. 277, 285 (App. Div. 2008).
Here, there was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could find
beyond a reasonable doubt that Courter committed an act relating to his office
knowing it was unauthorized or committed the act in an unauthorized manner
knowing the manner was unauthorized. The jury found him guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the underlying acts of tampering with public records,
A-3481-15T3
22
falsifying or tampering with records, and false swearing, all of which are
unauthorized criminal acts relating to his office.
In addition, Courter admitted at trial he was "aware that [the BPD] has
rules and regulations that specify that, 'No employee shall falsify any official
report'?[,]" which included "to enter, or to cause to be entered any inaccurate, or
false, or improper, information." For him to argue there was no evidence he
knowingly or willfully acted in an unauthorized manner in falsifying his police
reports and the complaint warrants defies logic.
There also was sufficient evidence on which a reasonable jury could find
beyond a reasonable doubt that Courter's purpose in committing the
unauthorized acts was to benefit himself or another or injure or deprive Jeter of
a benefit. The jury could logically infer from the evidence that Courter had the
purpose to benefit himself and Trinidad by hiding their unlawful misconduct to
protect them from forfeiture of their jobs and pensions and from potential
liability for assaulting Jeter. They were initially exonerated of assaulting Jeter
and, but for discovery of the video recording from Trinidad's patrol vehicle,
would have remained police officers while Jeter faced serious criminal charges
and a potential prison term for crimes he did not commit.
The Underlying Offenses
A-3481-15T3
23
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-7(a) (tampering with public records or information),
provides in pertinent part:
A person commits an offense [of tampering with public
records or information] if he:
(1) Knowingly makes a false entry in, or false
alteration of, any record, document or thing belonging
to, or received or kept by, the government for
information or record, or required by law to be kept by
others for information of the government;
(2) Makes, presents, offers for filing, or uses any
record, document or thing knowing it to be false, and
with purpose that it be taken as a genuine part of
information or records referred to in paragraph (1); or
(3) Purposely and unlawfully destroys, conceals,
removes, mutilates, or otherwise impairs the verity or
availability of any such record, document or thing.
[(Emphasis added).]
N.J.S.A. 2C:21-4(a) (falsifying or tampering with records), provides, in
pertinent part, that "a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he falsifies,
destroys, removes, conceals any writing or record, or utters any writing or record
knowing that it contains a false statement or information, with purpose to
deceive or injure anyone or to conceal any wrongdoing." (Emphasis added).
N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2(a) (false swearing), provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]
person who makes a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation, or
A-3481-15T3
24
swears or affirms the truth of such a statement previously made, when he does
not believe the statement to be true, is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree."
(Emphasis added). "To establish a defendant's guilt under N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2(a),
the State must prove that a particular statement was false and not believed by
the defendant to be true." State v. Bzura, 261 N.J. Super. 602, 610 (App. Div.
1993). To be convicted under N.J.S.A. 2C:28-2(a), "the false swearing [must
be] willful and intentional." State v. Angelo's Motor Sales, Inc., 125 N.J. Super.
200, 206 (App. Div. 1973) (holding that to be convicted under N.J.S.A. 2C:28-
2(a), "the false swearing [must be] willful and intentional"). All three crimes
required Courter to knowingly make a false statement.
Courter argues there was no evidence he knowingly made false statements
in his reports and the complaint warrants. He posits the statements were based
on what he perceived to be a true and accurate representation of his recollection
of the events in question, and the video recording from Trinidad's patrol vehicle
did not definitively prove he did not believe what he wrote in his reports.
Contrary to this argument, there was sufficient evidence on which a
reasonable jury could find Courter guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all three
crimes. Sutterlin's testimony, along with all of the police reports and video
recording from Trinidad's patrol vehicle show Courter's version of events was
A-3481-15T3
25
false, but he included that version in his reports and falsely charged Jeter based
on that version. The jury viewed the video recording several times and
apparently found it did not support Courter's claim that he believed Jeter grabbed
onto his holster in an attempt to get his handgun, and that Jeter assaulted
Trinidad and resisted arrest.
As previously noted, Courter admitted he was aware of the BPD's rules
and regulations prohibiting employees from falsifying an official report,
including entering inaccurate, false, or improper information. In addition,
Sutterlin testified he knew the events in his reports did not occur, but put them
in the reports because Courter and Trinidad told him what to write, which could
lead a jury to logically infer Courter also knew the reports and complaint
warrants were false.
Moreover, the video recording from Trinidad's patrol vehicle showed Jeter
had his hands up for the entirety of the incident, except for a few seconds when
Courter and Trinidad tried to extract him from the vehicle. The video did not
show Jeter punching Trinidad in the face, reaching for Courter's holster, or
resisting arrest, which could further lead a jury to logically infer that Courter
knew his reports and complaint warrants were false, but put these facts in them
A-3481-15T3
26
nonetheless and falsely charged Jeter with several crimes and motor vehicle
offenses he did not commit.
Furthermore, although Courter testified he did not know if it was Jeter
who grabbed his holster, he nevertheless charged him with third-degree
attempting to disarm a police officer. He admitted that if he was not sure
whether Jeter tried to grab his gun, he would have had to clarify that in his
complaint warrants, inform his superiors, and withdraw the complaints, none of
which he did. The evidence in this case was more than sufficient for the jury to
find Courter guilty of the underlying offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
II.
A.
On direct examination, Jeter referenced the high profile police brutality
cases involving Amadou Diallo, Rodney King, and Sean Bell to explain why he
did not exit his vehicle when ordered to exit and kept his hands raised. Jeter
testified:
So, as I was saying before, I grew up in a society where,
you know, you watch these, uh, these situations with
police brutality – you watch the Sean Bells, the
Amadou Diallos, the Rodney Kings, the Oscar and
Fruitvale Stations, and . . . I can testify that I'm a victim
of that. I can say that this is my testimony.
A-3481-15T3
27
Courter's counsel withdrew his objection to this testimony, and Judge Ravin
gave a limiting instruction that the jury could only use this testimony if it found
it was relevant to Jeter's state of mind in acting the way he acted. Counsel cross-
examined Jeter on this testimony.
Judge Ravin later gave another limiting instruction to the jury that
"[w]hatever the three attorneys say to you in giving their summations, it's not
evidence. The evidence came from the witness stand, by testimony and anything
I admitted into evidence." Prior to summations, the judge again instructed the
attorneys to only make comments about Jeter's testimony if it went to state of
mind, to which Courter did not object. Judge Ravin then instructed the jury:
Likewise, it's been agreed, based on Mr. Jeter's
testimony, that, if either side wants to talk about his
testimony concerning Rodney King, or Mr. Diallo, or
any of those cases, that each side may comment on it
only insofar as his testimony went to his state of mind
at the time in question, should the jury find that that is
material, and all parties find that his state of mind is
material.
During summation, the prosecutor made two brief comments about Jeter's
testimony. The first was:
But [Jeter] figures, he knows, and he told you, "I grew
up in a society in which, this type of situation, you have
to be very careful, because, if I make any gestures, and
it's interpreted the wrong way, I'm going to be shot."
That's what Marcus told you.
A-3481-15T3
28
And he's afraid. He's afraid for his life.
The second was: "[Jeter's] been sitting passively the whole time, and the only
reason he didn't get out of the car was because he was afraid to get shot, but his
hands have been up the whole time."
Courter argues for the first time on appeal in Point II that his conviction
must be overturned because the prosecutor's summation comments improperly
appealed to race to justify or excuse Jeter's failure to comply with the orders of
the police.
When a defendant raises prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on
appeal, this court need only be concerned with "whether the remarks, if
improper, substantially prejudiced the defendant['s] fundamental right to have
the jury fairly evaluate the merits of [his or her] defense, and thus had a clear
capacity to bring about an unjust result." State v. Johnson (Johnson I), 31 N.J.
489, 510 (1960). Even where a prosecutor has been guilty of misconduct,
reversal of a defendant's conviction is not necessary unless the conduct was so
egregious that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial. State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 437 (2007). "Thus, '[t]o justify reversal, the prosecutor's conduct must
have been clearly and unmistakably improper, and must have substantially
prejudiced defendant's fundamental right to have a jury fairly evaluate the merits
A-3481-15T3
29
of his defense.'" Id. at 438 (quoting State v. Papasavvas, 163 N.J. 525, 625
(2000)). To reverse for plain error, we must determine whether there is a real
possibility the error led to an unjust result, that is, one "sufficient to raise a
reasonable doubt as to whether [it] led the jury to a result it otherwise might not
have reached." State v. Ross, 229 N.J. 389, 407 (2017) (quoting State v.
Williams, 168 N.J. 323, 336 (2001)).
"Prosecutors are afforded considerable leeway in closing arguments as
long as their comments are reasonably related to the scope of the evidence
presented." State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76, 82 (1999). If no objection is made to
the remarks, they will generally not be deemed prejudicial. Ibid. Failure to
object indicates that defense counsel did not consider the comments improper at
the time they were made, and failure to object also deprives the court of the
"opportunity to take curative action." Id. at 84.
A prosecutor must "confine [his or her] comments to evidence revealed
during the trial and reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence . . .
[I]f a prosecutor's arguments are based on the facts of the case and reasonable
inferences therefrom, what is said in discussing them, 'by way of comment,
denunciation or appeal, will afford no ground for reversal.'" State v. Smith
(Smith II), 167 N.J. 158, 178 (2001) (quoting Johnson I, 31 N.J. at 510.
A-3481-15T3
30
Prosecutors are permitted to "respond to an issue or argument raised by defense
counsel." State v. Johnson (Johnson III), 287 N.J. Super. 247, 266 (App. Div.
1996).
"Summations must be 'fair and courteous, grounded in the evidence, and
free from any "potential to cause injustice.'" Risko v. Thompson Muller
Automotive Group, Inc., 206 N.J. 506, 522 (2011) (quoting Jackowitz v. Lang,
408 N.J. Super. 495, 505 (App. Div. 2009)). However, "[p]rosecutors are
permitted 'to make vigorous and forceful closing arguments to juries.'" State v.
Atwater, 400 N.J. Super. 319, 335 (App. Div. 2008) (quoting State v.
Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515, 587 (1999)). "Nevertheless, prosecutors must
limit their remarks to the evidence . . . and refrain from unfairly inflaming the
jury." Ibid. (citations omitted). "Where they cross the line beyond fair advocacy
and comment, and have the ability or 'capacity' to improperly influence the jury's
'ultimate decision making,' the trial judge must take action." Risko, 206 N.J. at
522 (quoting Bender v. Adelson, 187 N.J. 411, 416 (2006)).
"In reviewing closing arguments, we look, not to isolated remarks, but to
the summation as a whole." Atwater, 400 N.J. Super. at 335. If "[t]he comments
were only a small portion of a summation which was largely devoted to a fair
review of the evidence" and if "the trial court fully instructed the jury that its
A-3481-15T3
31
verdict should be based solely on the evidence and that summations by counsel
were not to be considered as evidence[,]" then the comments would not be so
inflammatory as to deny defendant a fair trial. State v. Tirone, 64 N.J. 222, 229
(1974). To the contrary, if the comments on summation are not based on the
evidence presented at trial, the comments may constitute reversible error. See
State v. Coyle, 119 N.J. 194, 220-21 (1990).
We discern no error, let alone plain error, in the prosecutor's summation
comments. The comments were within the parameters set by Judge Ravin and
agreed to by the parties before summations, as they went to Jeter's state of mind.
The prosecutor avoided mentioning the names of the other high profile cases or
excessively focusing on Jeter's state of mind. Looking at the summation as a
whole, the two comments were a brief five sentences within the context of a
fifty-page summation. The comments did not appeal to race or inflame the jury
and were in no way unduly prejudicial to Courter. The comments do not
constitute plain error of prosecutorial misconduct warranting reversal.
B.(1)
Courter argues for the first time on appeal that his conviction must be
overturned because on summation the prosecutor misrepresented the facts and
A-3481-15T3
32
law regarding the elements of eluding and the vehicular pursuit policy. We
disagree.
Eluding
Courter argues the prosecutor improperly led the jury to believe that Jeter
did not commit the offense of eluding and Courter was not justified in pursuing
him. He posits that Jeter committed the crime of eluding, as there was no dispute
he knew Courter was a police officer and Courter ordered him to stop his vehicle.
He also posits his pursuit was justified because he noticed alcohol on Jeter's
breath and Jeter's car had a flat tire and was in an unsafe condition to drive.
Courter's argument lacks merit. First, this case was not about Jeter eluding
the police or the police engaging in an improper pursuit. It was about three
officers conspiring to lie in order to cover up their wrongdoing and substantiate
the false criminal charges brought against Jeter.
Nonetheless, it was not improper for the State to argue the issues of
eluding. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(b) provides:
Any person, while operating a motor vehicle on any
street or highway in this State or any vessel . . . who
knowingly flees or attempts to elude any police or law
enforcement officer after having received any signal
from such officer to bring the vehicle or vessel to a full
stop commits a crime of the third degree; except that, a
person is guilty of a crime of the second degree if the
A-3481-15T3
33
flight or attempt to elude creates a risk of death or
injury to any person[.]
"[E]luding consists simply of 'knowingly' fleeing or attempting to elude a law
enforcement officer by motor vehicle after receiving a signal to stop." State v.
Mendez, 345 N.J. Super. 498, 506 (App. Div. 2001).
The "attendant circumstances" of eluding under
[ N.J.S.A.] 2C:29-2b are that the defendant must "hav[e]
received [a] signal . . . to bring the vehicle . . . to a full
stop" and the person giving the signal must have been
a "police or law enforcement officer." The "forbidden
conduct" is "flee[ing] or attempt[ing] to elude." The
material elements of eluding do not include any
required "result" of such conduct.
[Id. at 507 (alteration in original).]
It also was not improper for the State to argue the vehicular pursuit policy.
The New Jersey Vehicle Pursuit Policy provides that a police officer may start
a pursuit:
a. When the officer reasonably believes that the
violator has committed an offense of the first or second
degree, or an offense enumerated in Appendix A of this
policy, or
b. When a police officer reasonably believes that
the violator poses an immediate threat to the safety of
the public or other police officers.
[Robert Ramsey, 25 New Jersey Practice, § 19:3 (4th
ed. 2009).]
A-3481-15T3
34
Appendix A provides the following enumerated offenses: vehicular homicide,
N.J.S.A. 2C:11-5; aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b); criminal restraint,
N.J.S.A. 2C:13-2; aggravated criminal sexual contact, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-3(a);
arson, N.J.S.A. 2C:17-1(b); burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2; automobile theft,
N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2; theft by extortion, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-5; escape, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-
5; and manufacturing, distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous
substances, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-(5)b.
The issue of eluding was directly related to the timeline of events and the
charges brought against Courter. One of the charges was false swearing
stemming from the criminal charges Courter brought against Jeter, including
eluding. Thus, it was necessary for the State to discuss whether there was
evidentiary support for the charges to which Courter swore. In addition, the
prosecutor did not misrepresent the elements of eluding, as the prosecutor
directly quoted the offense as stated in the complaint warrants Courter signed.
Moreover, Courter raised the argument that Jeter eluded to further his defense
that he committed no wrongdoing and properly charged Jeter with eluding. The
prosecutor's comments properly responded to this argument.
It was not improper for the prosecutor to comment on the vehicular pursuit
policy, as it helped contextualize the timeline of events and was relevant to
A-3481-15T3
35
whether Courter charging Jeter with obstructing the administration of law or
other governmental function constituted false swearing. In addition, even if we
found it was improper to discuss eluding or the vehicular pursuit policy, it would
not constitute plain error warranting reversal.
B.(2)
Courter argues for the first time on appeal that his conviction must be
overturned because on summation the prosecutor misrepresented the facts and
law regarding the sufficiency of the criminal charges filed against Jeter. He
posits that the prosecutor made misrepresentations to the jury "that material facts
were omitted from the criminal charges filed against Jeter, thereby creating an
inference that the charges were fraudulent," which were clearly capable of
producing an unjust result.
Rule 3:2-1(a) provides that "[t]he complaint shall be a written statement
of the essential facts constituting the offense charges made on a form approved
by the Administrative Director of the Courts[.]" "In criminal matters, a
complaint is supposed to inform a defendant of the charges he must defend
against." State v. Salzman, 228 N.J. Super. 109, 114 (App. Div. 1987). "The
complaint must contain enough information to enable the accused to defend
himself and avoid the risk of successive prosecutions from the same
A-3481-15T3
36
transgressions." Ibid. "Due process requires that the charging instrument not
only inform a defendant respecting the nature of the charge, but it must also
inform an accused of how many charges he or she faces and when they
occurred." Ibid.
As Courter argues, there is no requirement that all of the facts of a case
must be included in the complaint. However, the sufficiency of the criminal
charges was at issue in this case due to the allegations of false swearing. Thus,
it was proper for the prosecutor to argue that Courter omitted pertinent facts of
the case, such as Jeter's alleged intoxication.
However, even if we found it was improper for the prosecutor to discuss
this issue, it was only a small portion of the State's argument that would not have
changed the jury's verdict. Thus, we conclude it does not amount to reversible
error under the plain error standard, as it would not mislead a jury.
III.
In Point III, Courter contends for the first time on appeal that his
conviction must be overturned because Judge Ravin failed to charge the jury
that Jeter had an affirmative duty to comply with a police officer's direction both
at Killian's residence and on the Garden State Parkway. He posits that this
produced an unjust result because the omission of this charge lead to the
A-3481-15T3
37
compounding of the misconduct regarding the prosecutor's appeal to race, as
well as the mistaken impression that Jeter's failure to comply with the officers'
directions was justified or excused.
When a defendant fails to object to an error regarding a jury charge, we
review for plain error. State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79 (2016). "Under that
standard, we disregard any alleged error 'unless it is of such a nature as to have
been clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid. (quoting R. 2:10-2).
"The mere possibility of an unjust result is not enough. To warrant reversal . . .
an error at trial must be sufficient to raise 'a reasonable doubt . . . as to whether
the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached.'" Ibid.
(alteration in original) (quoting State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 361 (2004)).
It is unclear how a jury charge as to the requirement to comply with an
officer's direction would have impacted the jury's decision. Rather, it would
have confused the jury as to the law pertinent to the charges against Courter.
Courter was not charged with assault, only of tampering with records, falsifying
records, false swearing, official misconduct, and conspiracy to commit official
misconduct. Judge Ravin instructed the jury as to each of these offenses. The
judge meticulously discussed each element of each offense and explained that
the jury must find each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the judge
A-3481-15T3
38
gave the appropriate and proper jury charges relevant to this trial. See State v.
Baum, 224 N.J. 147, 158-59 (2016). The jury charge Courter requests for the
first time on appeal had no bearing on the jury's determination of the charged
offenses and did not lead to an unjust result.
IV.
In Point IV, Courter argues, and the State agrees, that his conviction on
the underlying offenses should have merged with his conviction for official
misconduct. Accordingly, we remand for resentencing to merge counts one,
three, four, and five with count two.
Courter's conviction and sentence on count two are affirmed. This matter
is remanded for resentencing to merge counts one, three, four, and five with
count two.
A-3481-15T3
39
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
