STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAMUEL LOPEZ
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-1210-19T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SAMUEL LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted September 14, 2020 – Decided September 23, 2020
Before Judges Fasciale and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 16-04-1216.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Douglas R. Helman, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, on the briefs).
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Adam D. Klein, Deputy Attorney General,
of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
A jury convicted defendant Samuel Lopez of armed robbery, felony
murder, and weapons offenses, and acquitted him of murder and manslaughter
offenses. The trial court imposed an aggregate term of forty-five years subject
to a mandatory period of parole ineligibility under the No Early Release Act
(NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
Defendant appealed, challenging his conviction and sentence. In
response, we affirmed defendant's sentence, but we concluded that the trial court
did not apply the correct test for determining whether certain text messages
should have been admitted into evidence under the co-conspirator exception to
the hearsay rule. See N.J.R.E. 803(b)(5). 1 We remanded and directed that if
after applying the correct test the trial court determined the text messages were
properly admitted, defendant's conviction would stand. Otherwise, it was to be
vacated and a new trial ordered. See Lopez, slip op. at 2-3.
On October 23, 2019, the trial court held a remand hearing as to whether
the text messages were admissible under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(5), it considered the
1
Instead, the trial court determined whether the text messages were relevant
and it excluded any portion that violated N.J.R.E. 404(b)'s prohibition against
other crime evidence. State v. Lopez, No. 2623-17 (App. Div. June 28, 2019)
(slip op. at 20).
A-1210-19T1
2
applicable factors, and concluded that the messages were admissible under that
Rule.2 That same day, the court entered an order stating it found "there was
sufficient independent[t] evidence of a conspiracy between the defendant and
the co-defendant on the record at trial, such that the trial court properly admitted
the text messages." This appeal followed.
On appeal. defendant argues the following point:
POINT I
[DEFENDANT] WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL
WHEN HEARSAY TEXT MESSAGES WERE
ADMITTED AGAINST HIM, AS STATEMENTS OF
A COCONSPIRATOR, BECAUSE THE COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THERE WAS SUFFICIENT,
INDEPENDENT PROOF THAT A CONSPIRACY
WAS AFOOT.
We are unpersuaded by this contention.
The facts that led to defendant's conviction are set forth in detail in our
earlier opinion and need not be repeated here for our purposes. See id. at 3-13.
Suffice it to say that at trial defendant was never directly identified as having
participated in the robbery and the murder. His guilt was established
circumstantially through testimony, video footage, and the challenged text
messages.
2
The text messages are set forth in our earlier opinion. See id. at 14-16.
A-1210-19T1
3
In our earlier opinion, we explained the determinations a trial court must
make before admitting the content of a conversation between a defendant and
his alleged co-conspirator and the importance of the presence of independent
evidence of the conspiracy. We stated the following:
Relevant to the present case, a statement "is not
excluded by the hearsay rule if it was 'made at the time
the party and the declarant were participating in a plan
to commit a crime . . . and . . . made [it] in furtherance
of that plan.'" State v. Cagno, 211 N.J. 488, 529 (2012)
(quoting N.J.R.E. 803(b)(5)). In order to admit a
statement of a co-conspirator into evidence, the State
must prove that "(1) the statement was 'made in
furtherance of the conspiracy'; (2) the statement was
'made during the course of the conspiracy'; and (3) there
is 'evidence, independent of the hearsay, of the
existence of the conspiracy and [the] defendant's
relationship to it.'" Id. at 529-30 (alteration in original)
(quoting State v. Taccetta, 301 N.J. Super. 227, 251
(App. Div. 1997)). See also [State v. Harris, 298 N.J.
Super. 478, 488 (App. Div. 1997).]
Before admitting such statements, a "trial court must
make a preliminary determination of whether there is
independent proof of the conspiracy." State v. Savage,
172 N.J. 374, 403 (2002). See also N.J.R.E. 104(a)
("[w]hen the . . . admissibility of evidence . . . is
subject to a condition, and the fulfillment of the
condition is in issue, that issue is to be determined by
the judge"). The independent evidence can take various
forms and "must be substantial enough to engender a
strong belief in the existence of the conspiracy and of
the defendant's participation." State v. Phelps, 96 N.J.
500, 511 (1984).
A-1210-19T1
4
[Lopez, slip op. at 19-20.]
The only issue to be determined here on was the third factor – whether
there was sufficient "evidence, independent of the hearsay, of the existence of
the conspiracy and [the] defendant's relationship to it." We observed that "prior
to the jury having the text messages read to it, there was testimony and other
evidence relating to the robbery and shooting." Id. at 21. We directed the trial
court to "determine [if] that evidence constituted substantial independent non-
hearsay evidence of defendant's participation in a conspiracy to commit the
crimes." Ibid. If so, "defendant's conviction should remain undisturbed [, and
if not] then it must enter an order vacating the conviction and granting defendant
a new trial at which the text messages will not be admitted." Ibid.
After conducting the remand hearing, the trial court determined that "the
[other] evidence presented in this case create[d] a strong belief that a conspiracy
existed and that the defendant participated." In its oral decision, the trial cou rt
identified the other evidence and how it demonstrated the existence of a
conspiracy, independent of the text messages. Based on that other evidence, the
trial court found that the text messages were admissible under N.J.R.E.
803(b)(5). The court stated that "when considering all this evidence together by
A-1210-19T1
5
a preponderance of the evidence, there is substantial proof that a conspiracy
existed and that the defendant participated in that conspiracy."
On appeal, defendant's sole contention is that the trial court erred when it
concluded that independent proof of a conspiracy existed. Quoting Phelps, 96 N.J. at 519, defendant argues the court erred by finding that "the quantum of
evidence in this case [was] 'substantial enough to engender a strong belief in the
existence of the conspiracy and of [the] defendant’s participation.'" We
disagree.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, see State v.
Cole, 229 N.J. 430, 449 (2017), by concluding the text messages were
admissible under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(5), substantially for the reasons expressed by
the trial court in its comprehensive oral decision. We find that the decision was
supported by other overwhelming evidence of defendant's participation in the
conspiracy, which supported the admission of the text messages.
Affirmed.
A-1210-19T1
6
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.
