State v. Doce

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL J. DOCE, Defendant-Appellant.

DOCKET NO. A-0967-17T4

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued November 18, 2019

May 7, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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.

Before Judges Fasciale, Rothstadt, and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 15-07-0801.

Eric R. Breslin argued the cause for appellant (Duane Morris, LLP, attorneys; Eric R. Breslin and Melissa S. Geller, of counsel; Sarah Fehm-Stewart, on the briefs).

Nancy A. Hulett, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Christopher L.C. Kuberiet, Acting Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Nancy A. Hulett, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Michael J. Doce appeals from the Law Division's October 5, 2017 judgment of conviction that was entered after a jury found defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C11-3(a)(1), and murder N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), (2). The trial court sentenced defendant to thirty years imprisonment without parole eligibility.

On appeal, defendant challenges his conviction by arguing that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated; the trial court improperly admitted certain photographs into evidence; and he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of various acts and omissions committed by the prosecutor. He also contends that the cumulative errors in his trial warrant a reversal. For the reasons that follow, we remand defendant's speedy trial claims to the trial court as they were not addressed by that court in the first instance but affirm as to all other issues.

I.

The facts established at defendant's trial that lead to his conviction are summarized as follows. On November 6, 2011, defendant's codefendant, DanielMedaglia murdered K.D.¹ As the jury found, Medaglia did so at the direction of defendant, whom he had met about two years earlier. According to Medaglia, he committed the murder in an attempt to become involved in and "move up the ladder" of an established, well-known New Jersey organized crime "family" that defendant told Medaglia he was a prominent member and could help Medaglia become a member.²

At the time Medaglia and defendant met, they were both involved in the illegal sale of prescription drugs and made purchases from each other. Several months after they met, defendant told Medaglia that his "Uncle Paulie" was the head of the crime family, and as an underboss, he was a high-ranking member,and he could help Medaglia climb the ladder in the crime family. Defendant told Medaglia that "Uncle Paulie" could help Medaglia set up his "own loan sharking and bookie operation." Medaglia "wanted to get in close with [defendant] after he said he was a member" of a crime family because Medaglia was attracted to the "[m]oney, cars, things of that nature."

During 2010 and early 2011, Medaglia spent almost every day with defendant and they would discuss the crime family's activities. Defendant also introduced Medaglia to several individuals who were members of that family or had connections to the family. Medaglia started receiving text messages from an unidentified number and an individual who claimed to be one of the crime family's members.

By March 2011, Medaglia and defendant's relationship "was escalating" and Medaglia considered defendant "one of the most important people in [his] life." Around that time, defendant informed Medaglia that he was going to start asking Medaglia to do things for him, and Medaglia was willing to do "basically anything [defendant] said."

Later, defendant told Medaglia that he would arrange to get him more involved. Thereafter, Medaglia received a telephone call from someone, who sounded like an "older Italian guy," who said that he had "heard good thingsabout" Medaglia from defendant and that he was "going to set [Medaglia] up in [his] own thing pretty soon." Defendant promised to help Medaglia get a job as a bouncer at a strip club that he "had control over," and he would introduce Medaglia to the managers, who were also members of the family.

Through his developing relationship with Medaglia, defendant met K.D., who sold him drugs when Medaglia was not available. Thereafter, on one occasion, police officers followed K.D. as he drove to Medaglia's parent's house. After that incident, Medaglia stopped spending time with K.D. because he was upset that K.D. "got [them] jammed up in this little . . . run from the police." However, initially, defendant offered to help K.D. by using the connections he had to a prosecutor and the police, and stated that he could get the charges against K.D. dropped if K.D. paid him $500. K.D. told Medaglia that he was not going to pay defendant because he did not believe defendant had a connection or was really part of the crime family.

Defendant started calling K.D. a "snitch" and believed that K.D. told authorities about his drug sale operation. Medaglia was concerned about getting caught because he had friends who had recently been arrested for drug sales. Defendant worried that if Medaglia was arrested as a result of K.D. being a snitch, then defendant could be arrested as well.

Defendant began to frequently discuss with Medaglia the possible solution to "take [K.D.] out." Starting in March and April 2011, defendant "constant[ly]" pressured Medaglia to kill K.D., and the pressure continued "basically up until November 6, 2011," when Medaglia committed the murder.

When discussing the planned murder, Medaglia became worried that he also would be killed. He began receiving phone calls from a restricted number from an individual again claiming to be "Uncle Paulie" who told him that K.D. "got us all jammed up," "that he was putting a $50,000 hit on [K.D.'s] head," and that it was Medaglia's "job to handle the situation." Similarly, defendant told Medaglia he would be paid once he completed the hit, and that he could be "liable" if he did not take care of the situation.

Several months prior to the murder, when Medaglia was driving with defendant, he pointed out a terminal to Medaglia, and said it was a "bad place" where murders happened, and that defendant "had personally killed nine people and buried [their] bodies there." Defendant said that when the crime family had to kill people, they did it there and that Medaglia would "have to do it alone [the] first time." Defendant also told Medaglia that a family member named Phil or Steve would help with digging holes and ensuring Medaglia was clean afterwards. Eventually, they began to specifically discuss Medaglia taking K.D.to the terminal to kill him there. Medaglia asked defendant what he would use, and defendant told him he would "give [him] a sharp knife."

On November 5, 2011, the day prior to the murder, Medaglia was with K.D. at a motel. Medaglia texted defendant a number of messages stating that Medaglia wanted "to do this for real." In response, defendant told Medaglia "[f]ine" but that he was "not getting dirty" and would have someone prepare a hole to bury K.D.'s body. Medaglia told defendant he did not have a "piece" (referring to a handgun), and defendant responded to "use a blade. No noise."

While Medaglia waited for defendant to go to the terminal, Medaglia and K.D. went to a bank nearby the motel and K.D. withdrew $500 because Medaglia had told him they were going to purchase drugs. Ultimately, the murder did not occur that day because defendant did not come to the motel and Medaglia felt he "needed more direction" because he was not "sure what to do."

The following afternoon, Medaglia texted defendant that K.D. was picking him up and that he "want[ed] to handle this now." K.D. picked Medaglia up from his parent's house, and the two men went to a shopping mall. While there, Medaglia texted defendant a reference to the terminal, saying he was about to take K.D. to a "Giants game alone" and wanted defendant to call him. At 3:49 p.m., Medaglia and K.D. were still at the mall "wasting time until [Medaglia]received further directions" from defendant.

Defendant and Medaglia exchanged additional text messages, and then Medaglia asked if he could bring K.D. to the "game" at 4:23 p.m. Defendant responded with the following:

You can, but you have to go alone. In the back is a river, my dad's yacht is in the water. Go to the dock. We always have rope and concrete blocks . . . there. Tie him and put him in the water behind the back of the boat. The crabs will eat him in two days. Put the car in drive into the river too. I'll . . . have someone go there now to make sure you have cover.

Medaglia also asked defendant for directions on where to go once he arrived at the terminal, defendant told him where to park, and then to "[c]lock [K.D.] and either take [the] car or put [it] in [the] water." Medaglia told defendant that he wanted to show defendant that he could "hold it down" and that he was going to make him proud. Defendant texted in response "'[y]es' with exclamation points."

At 4:53 p.m., Medaglia texted defendant with his plan to come up behind K.D. and hit him. Defendant reminded Medaglia to make sure he deleted every text message and said, "[s]o help you God if you don't I'll make sure you're swimming too." Defendant followed up with another text a few minutes later that read, "Be quick. Clock to the back. Water. Car. Out."

Medaglia and K.D. stopped at a gas station, and Medaglia continued to text defendant updates of his location. K.D. also withdrew money from an ATM at the gas station for the drug deal K.D. believed was going to occur.

Defendant texted Medaglia, to make sure he was ready and told Medaglia he did not "have to...