Blog Post: Confrontation Clause and Persistent Offender Sentencing in New Jersey – State of New Jersey v. Jamel Carlton

New Appellate Division Decision on Persistent Offender Sentencing

On November 27, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued its decision in State of New Jersey v. Jamel Carlton, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2024), addressing critical issues in criminal law, including a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights and persistent offender sentencing. This ruling highlighted the application of the very recent United States Supreme Court decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), on New Jersey’s sentencing law.

Facts and Procedural History in Persistent Offender Sentencing

Jamel Carlton was convicted of multiple crimes, including aggravated sexual assault of N.K. and burglary, stemming from a violent incident in an Atlantic City casino-hotel. Key evidence included DNA results and surveillance footage. The trial court sentenced Carlton to 42 years under the persistent offender statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a), which allows enhanced penalties for those with qualifying prior convictions. The trial judge found that Carlton was a persistent offender based on two prior New York felony convictions for robbery (2007) and possession of stolen property (2011).

Constitutional Implications of Persistent Offender Sentencing

The Appellate Division found that Carlton’s sentence violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as established by the recent Erlinger decision. Under Erlinger, any factual determinations for persistent offender sentencing—such as whether prior crimes occurred on separate occasions—must be decided by a jury, not a judge.

The court rejected the State’s argument that overwhelming evidence of Carlton’s prior convictions rendered the violation of Erlinger “harmless error.” The court emphasized the constitutional importance of jury determinations in the application of extended sentences. Thus, in the absence of further guidance from the United States Supreme Court on permissible exemptions to the Erlinger rule, the Appellate Division found it was constrained to vacate Carlton’s persistent-offender extended-term sentence and remand to the Law Division with instructions on how to remedy the constitutional violation.

Legal and Evidentiary Challenges in the Case

For the first time on appeal, Carlton argued that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial judge allowed the jury to hear lay opinion testimony about how they became aware that defendant was the suspect shown on surveillance video. Prior to the assault of N.K., Carlton was involved in a domestic violence episode with his girlfriend in the hotel. Casino security personnel were aware of the suspect’s identity on the surveillance video from Carlton’s involvement in the early domestic violence incident.

Carlton moved to preclude the State from referring to the domestic violence incident. The State agreed not to present any evidence of the incident, and agreed that the officers would testify only generally that they were aware of Carlton as the suspect. Defense counsel did not object to that approach, nor did counsel object when the State’s witnesses testified that casino security personnel were familiar with Carlton and provided a picture of him to police officers to assist in the sexual assault investigation.

The Appellate Division found that the testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause because Carlton had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses about how they were aware of him, why they had a picture of him, and how they were able to identify him as a suspect. Thus, the court was satisfied that the defense made a strategic decision not to object to their sanitized testimony and not to explore the true basis for their knowledge on cross-examination.

And Carlton argued the trial judge erred by preventing him from introducing evidence about the victim’s prior sexual conduct and from discussing a newspaper article from 2005 describing prostitution activities at the casino-hotel. The Appellate Division found that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in precluding Carlton from cross-examining witnesses about an article published thirteen years prior to the sexual assault of N.K.

The Appellate Division also found that under New Jersey’s Rape Shield Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7, and State v. Perry, 225 N.J. 222 (2016), that the trial judge did not err in denying Carlton’s motion to preclude evidence of a minor unidentified DNA profile detected on a swab obtained from N.K.’s cervix.

Conclusion: Key Takeaways on Persistent Offender Sentencing

The State of New Jersey v. Jamel Carlton decision underscores the evolving standards for persistent offender sentencing in light of constitutional protections. The ruling clarifies the necessity for jury findings in enhanced sentencing cases, reflecting the impact of the newly decided Erlinger case on New Jersey’s judicial processes. Lawyers and defendants must carefully evaluate the application of sentencing statutes to ensure compliance with these critical procedural requirements. The ruling also addresses several significant evidentiary issues, including Confrontation Clause violations.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.