STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAYMOND E. TROXELL
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-3126-17T3
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RAYMOND E. TROXELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________
Submitted December 2, 2019 – Decided March 2, 2020
Before Judges Messano and Susswein.
On appeal from the State of New Jersey, Law Division,
Middlesex County, Indictment No. 09-02-0348.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on
the brief).
Christopher L.C. Kuberiet, Acting Middlesex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Joie D. Piderit,
Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
A jury convicted defendant Raymond Troxell of the first-degree murder
of his business partner, Vincent Russo, and answered two specific
interrogatories that compelled the imposition of a life sentence without parole
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b)(4). State v. Troxell, 434 N.J. Super. 502, 504
(App. Div. 2014). The Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for
certification. 221 N.J. 285 (2014).
We summarized most of the salient evidence at trial in our prior opinion.
Id. at 505–08. A key State's witness was John Kissel, defendant's long-time
friend to whom defendant offered $3000 to kill Russo. Id. at 506. Kissel's
testimony critically tied defendant to co-defendant, Frank Marsh, who the State
alleged defendant paid to ultimately execute the murder. Id. at 506–07.1
Defendant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) alleging
ineffective assistance of trial counsel (IAC) and asserting six specific failings
that demonstrated deficient performance. Defendant contended that trial
counsel failed to investigate the State's evidence regarding Marsh's involvement,
failed to call Marsh as a witness, failed to call an expert to challenge the State's
1
Marsh was tried separately, convicted, and sentenced to a mandatory life
sentence without parole. State v. Marsh, No. A-6279-10 (App. Div. Oct. 16,
2014) (slip op. at 2).
A-3126-17T3
2
evidence of Marsh's involvement, failed to call "material witnesses favorable to
the defense," failed to adequately cross-examine the State's witnesses and failed
to investigate and call an expert regarding "Marsh's cell phone activity around
the time of the crime."
After the appointment of PCR counsel and with his assistance, defendant
filed a supplemental certification expounding on the IAC claims. In large part,
these were criticisms of trial counsel's failure to call allegedly exculpatory
witnesses at trial, although the appellate record fails to include any certifications
or affidavits from these purported exculpatory witnesses. Additionally,
defendant criticized trial counsel's failure to challenge the State's contention that
defendant withdrew a large sum of money from the business's bank account to
pay Marsh. Defendant certified that he gave trial counsel a bank check issued
the same day as the withdrawal and made payable to the landlord who owned
the business premises.
In a written opinion, the PCR judge, who was not the trial judge,
synthesized defendant's IAC assertions into two categories. First, that trial
counsel failed to investigate defendant's "prescription drug use and lack of
sleep" contemporaneous to multiple statements defendant provided to police
during their investigation. See id. at 508. The PCR judge concluded defendant
A-3126-17T3
3
failed to establish a prima facie case warranting an evidentiary hearing as to this
claim.
Defendant's second claim was that trial counsel failed to use "available
evidence that important portions of . . . Kissel's testimony were false." The
"available evidence" included Marsh's cell phone records, which were produced
at trial. These records demonstrated calls Marsh made contradicted Kissel's
testimony about the timing of certain events, including a meeting at defendant's
house, where defendant, Kissel and Marsh were present, and Kissel saw
defendant with a large "wad" of cash. Although trial counsel's cross-
examination of Kissel was quite vigorous, he never confronted Kissel with
Marsh's phone records. The PCR judge granted defendant an evidentiary
hearing "for the limited purpose of exploring trial counsel's decision to cross-
examine . . . Kissel without utilizing cell phone records to contradict the veracity
of his testimony." 2
2
The judge did not address any of the other claims made in the certifications
supporting the PCR petition. We have not been provided with a copy of
defendant's PCR brief, and, the transcript of oral argument reveals that PCR
counsel focused on the two contentions cited by the judge, and mentioned, in
passing, defendant's claim regarding the bank check.
A-3126-17T3
4
A second PCR judge conducted an evidentiary hearing at which
defendant's trial counsel was the sole witness. 3 In his written statement of
reasons, the judge recounted trial counsel's testimony, which he found credible,
and noted that although counsel was aware of the cell phone records, he
"deliberately chose not to cross-examine . . . Kissel . . . because he did not want
to give . . . Kissel an opportunity to rehabilitate himself." Instead, trial counsel
used the cell phone records during summation "to discredit . . . Kissel's
testimony." The judge found trial counsel made a "reasonable strategic
decision[]" not to cross-examine Kissel with the cell phone records. The judge
concluded trial counsel's performance was not deficient and denied defendant's
PCR petition.
Before us, defendant raises the following argument:
POINT I
DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS MUST BE
REVERSED BECAUSE TRIAL COUNSEL WAS
3
Defendant proffered an expert's report from Patrick Cronin regarding cell
tower tracking. We have not been furnished with a copy of the report. The State
objected, arguing the sole issue to be resolved at the hearing was trial counsel's
decision not to use the cell phone records during cross-examination of Kissel.
The judge sustained the State's objection, holding that the subject was not a valid
area for expert testimony. Defendant has not challenged the exclusion of
Cronin's testimony on appeal.
A-3126-17T3
5
INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT CROSS-EXAMINING THE
STATE'S PRINCIPAL WITNESS WITHOUT
UTILIZING THE CELL[]PHONE RECORDS TO
IMPUGN HIS VERACITY.
Defendant raises the following points in a pro se supplemental brief:
POINT I
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION AS THE EVIDENCE
ADDUCED AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
DEMONSTRATED THE STATE USED FALSE
EVIDENCE TO OBTAIN DEFENDANT'S
CONVICTION IN VIOLATION OF HIS
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL.
POINT II
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S PCR PETITION AS THE EVIDENCE
ADDUCED AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING
DEMONSTRATED THE STATE COMMITTED A
BRADY[4] VIOLATION WHEN IT FAILED TO
TURN OVER TO DEFENSE MATERIAL EVIDENCE
FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT.
POINT III
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
TRIAL COUNSEL EXERCISED REASONABLE
TRIAL STRATEGY AS COUNSEL CANNOT
ACQUIESCE TO A VIOLATION OF DEFENANT'S
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS RIGHT AND A FAIR
TRIAL.
4
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
A-3126-17T3
6
POINT IV
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S PETITION WHEN IT FAILED TO
RECOGNIZE[] THE STATE'S BLATANT AND
CONTINUAL MISCONDUCT WHICH VIOLATED
DEFENDANT'S FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL.
POINT V
THE PCR COURT ERRED IN DENYING
DEFENDANT'S PETITION WHEN IT REFUSED TO
CONSIDER DEFEDANT'S OTHER CLAIMS
THEREBY DENYING HIM DUE PROCESS AND A
FAIR HEARING.[5]
POINT VI
THE PCR COURT ERRED WHEN IT REFUSED TO
CONSIDER THE MERITS OF DEFENDANT'S
CLAIM THAT HE IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT, AND
THE CONVICTION IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF
THE EVIDENCE, WHICH VIOLATED HIS RIGHT
TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND
DUE PROCESS AS AFFORDED HIM BY THE
SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE [1], PARAGRAPH 10 OF THE NEW
JERSEY CONSTITUTION.
Having considered these arguments in light of the record and applicable legal
standards, we affirm.
5
We have omitted the subpoints in Points V and VI.
A-3126-17T3
7
I.
To establish an IAC claim, a defendant must satisfy the two-prong test
formulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and adopted
by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). First, he must
show "that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as
the 'counsel' guaranteed . . . by the Sixth Amendment." Id. at 52 (quoting
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687). Second, a defendant must show by a "reasonable
probability" that the deficient performance affected the outcome. Fritz, 105 N.J.
at 58. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome." State v. Pierre, 223 N.J. 560, 583 (2015) (quoting
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52).
Importantly, "[o]ur standard of review is necessarily deferential to a PCR
court's factual findings . . . that are supported by sufficient credible evidence in
the record." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 540 (2013) (citing State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 415 (2004)). We review de novo, however, the trial court's application
of those facts to the legal principles involved. Harris, 181 N.J. at 416.
In assessing defendant's claim, we "give great deference to counsel's
performance and must strongly presume that the attorney's conduct constituted
reasonable professional assistance[,]" State v. Petrozelli, 351 N.J. Super. 14,
A-3126-17T3
8
21–22 (App. Div. 2002), remaining wary in order to "avoid viewing the
performance under the 'distorting effects of hindsight.'" State v. Norman, 151 N.J. 5, 37 (1997) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689). "The quality of counsel's
performance cannot be fairly assessed by focusing on a handful of issues while
ignoring the totality of counsel's performance in the context of the State's
evidence of [a] defendant's guilt." State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 314 (2006)
(citing State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 165 (1991)).
In this case, the PCR judge had the opportunity to hear and see trial
counsel's testimony, which he judged credible. He accepted counsel's
explanation why he did not confront Kissel with the phone records during cross-
examination, choosing, instead, to deliver a blow to Kissel's credibility on
summation, when the witness would be unable to explain away inconsistencies.
Moreover, as trial counsel explained, the divergence between Kissel's
timeline and contrary implications from the phone records was not critical to the
overall defense strategy. After all, in his statement to police, defendant admitted
offering money to Marsh to kill Russo, but he claimed the offer was in jest and
he never thought Marsh would go through with the murder. Defendant admitted
giving money to Kissel to give to Marsh but claimed he did so out of fear after
finding out Marsh actually had killed Russo.
A-3126-17T3
9
Kissel's testimony about seeing Marsh at defendant's home and what
transpired on the evening of the murder was undoubtedly important. However,
trial counsel was able to establish through the State's investigator that Marsh's
phone was using certain cell towers at various times, and that it was unlikely
Marsh could have been at defendant's home when Kissel claimed he was. Trial
counsel drove the point home in summation. The tactic was effective, because,
in summation, the prosecutor acknowledged that defendant's version of the
timing of the evening's events made "more sense" than Kissel's based on the
location information in Marsh's phone records. The prosecutor nonetheless
urged the jury to believe Kissel's version based on other evidence in the record.
Generally, "strategic miscalculations or trial mistakes are insufficient to
warrant reversal 'except in those rare instances where they are of such magnitude
as to thwart the fundamental guarantee of [a] fair trial.'" Castagna, 187 N.J. at
315 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Buonadonna, 122 N.J. 22, 42
(1991)). Counsel's "strategic choices made after a thorough investigation of law
and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable[.]"
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690. We reject defendant's claim that trial counsel
rendered deficient performance because he failed to cross-examine Kissel with
the cell phone records.
A-3126-17T3
10
II.
We are unpersuaded by any of the points defendant raises in his pro se
supplemental brief, some of which were never raised before, either on direct
appeal or before the PCR judges.
The arguments defendant raises in Points I, III and IV of his supplemental
brief require some explication. During colloquy at the PCR evidentiary hearing,
but before trial counsel testified, the assistant prosecutor, who was not the trial
prosecutor, presented a timeline for the sequence of events on the evening of the
murder that was contrary to that argued by the prosecutor at trial. She
acknowledged that Kissel's trial testimony was inconsistent with the cell phone
records, but that the information "was all presented to the jury."
Defendant contends the State solicited false information at trial, because
the trial prosecutor knew Kissel's version of events was false. He asserts that
the judge erred in finding trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision in
not using the phone records to cross-examine Kissel, because the Rules of
Professional Conduct (RPC) and other professional standards prohibit an
attorney from offering evidence he knows is false. Defendant also argues that
the State's shifting assertions about the timeline of critical events amounts to
A-3126-17T3
11
misconduct, and that any version of events other than those proposed by the
State at trial is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel.
None of these contentions were specifically raised before either PCR
judge. See State v. Witt, 223 N.J. 409, 419 (2015) ("[W]ith few exceptions, 'our
appellate courts will decline to consider questions or issues not properly
presented to the trial court when an opportunity for such a presentation is
available.'" (quoting State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009))). Nevertheless,
as already noted, inconsistencies between the phone records and Kissel's
testimony were laid bare for the jury, and the prosecutor acknowledged those
inconsistencies. Kissel himself testified that he generally was "not that sure
about the times," and admitted that he had memory problems that affected his
recall. There is no evidence that the prosecutor solicited false testimony.
Moreover, there is no evidence that trial counsel violated any RPC, or testified
falsely at the PCR hearing, as defendant also claims. The PCR prosecutor's
mistaken recollection of the trial record is not the equivalent of misconduct, nor
did the PCR judge rely on her misstatements in deciding whether trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance. Defendant's assertion that judicial estoppel
applies and should result in reversal of his conviction lacks sufficient merit to
warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
A-3126-17T3
12
In Point II, defendant argues the State committed a Brady violation
because before trial it did not provide underlying phone subscriber information
contained on spreadsheets that the State's investigator prepared for presentation
during his testimony. The issue was never raised before the PCR judge, nor was
it raised on direct appeal. See R. 3:22-4(a) (barring claims that could have been
raised on direct appeal but were not). Nonetheless, the trial record is clear.
Defense counsel had all the information, albeit not organized in the same format
as the spreadsheets the investigator prepared for his testimony. Following
counsel's objection, the trial judge ordered the State to provide copies of the
spreadsheets before permitting the State to use the exhibits at trial. The
argument merits no further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
In Point V, defendant contends the PCR court erred by limiting the
evidentiary hearing to a single issue and by failing to address other points raised
in the petition. However, other than reiterating the judicial estoppel argument,
the only argument defendant briefs on this point is the claim that trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance because he failed to introduce evidence that
monies withdrawn from the business's account were used to pay rent, not to pay
Marsh.
A-3126-17T3
13
We have already acknowledged that PCR counsel referenced the issue
during oral argument before the first PCR judge, and the judge never addressed
the issue in his written decision. While we do not condone the oversight, our
own review of the record leads us to conclude that the judge did not mistake nly
exercise his discretion in denying any evidentiary hearing on the issue and
impliedly rejecting defendant's IAC claim in this regard.
We review denial of an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Brewster, 429 N.J. Super. 387, 401 (App. Div. 2013). A defendant is
only entitled to an evidentiary hearing on an IAC claim if he makes a prima facie
showing demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success under both prongs of
the Strickland/Fritz test. R. 3:22-10(b).
In his certification, defendant alleged that trial counsel "failed to present
substantial evidence relating to financial transactions" surrounding defendant's
withdrawal of cash from the business account. Defendant stated that he provided
trial counsel with a copy of a bank check and deposit stamp showing his landlord
deposited the check for $2350 into his account one week before Russo's murder.
The check is in the appellate record, but there is no indication that it was
produced at trial.
A-3126-17T3
14
Even though the first PCR judge ordered an evidentiary hearing limited to
trial counsel's decision regarding Marsh's phone records, during the hearing
defendant's PCR counsel questioned trial counsel about the check. Trial counsel
said he had no recollection of it. Defendant did not testify at the PCR hearing,
so his IAC claim rests solely on his certification. Assuming arguendo that
defendant provided trial counsel with a copy of the deposited bank check, his
failure to introduce the check in evidence at trial, even if deficient, does not
satisfy the second prong of the Strickland/Fritz test.
The record clearly established that trial counsel rebutted the State's theory
that defendant's withdrawal was used to pay Marsh. While cross-examining the
prosecutor's investigator, trial counsel solicited testimony that the $2350
withdrawn from the business account in December 2008 was the same amount
as a canceled check that defendant had paid the business's landlord in November.
Counsel reiterated the point in summation, arguing that the withdrawal was a
rent payment. In his summation, the trial prosecutor conceded that the amount
withdrawn "seemed to coincide with the rent payment," adding that the jury
"could have a reasonable doubt" about whether defendant had used the
withdrawn cash to pay Marsh.
A-3126-17T3
15
Even if trial counsel's failure to introduce the check demonstrated
deficient performance, defendant failed to prove there was a "reasonable
probability" that the deficient performance affected the outcome. Fritz, 105 N.J.
at 58. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome." Pierre, 223 N.J. at 583 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52.). Defendant failed to make a prima facie case
of ineffective assistance on this issue.
To the extent we have failed to specifically address defendant's remaining
arguments, including those raised in Point VI, they are either procedurally
barred by Rule 3:22-4(a), or lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-3126-17T3
16
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.
