State v. Martin

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. COREY S. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-4026-18

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

October 6, 2021

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 16, 2021

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Mercer County, Indictment No 18-03-0165.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (James K Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Alicia Gres, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Fuentes and Gummer.

PER CURIAM

After the trial court denied his suppression motion, defendant Corey S. Martin pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)(1), and was sentenced to a three-year term of probation. Because the trial court did not err in denying the suppression motion, we affirm.

Defendant was indicted by a grand jury for second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, id., third-degree hindering apprehension, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1), and third-degree receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7(a). Defendant moved to suppress physical evidence obtained after an allegedly improper motor-vehicle stop.

During the suppression hearing, the following facts were elicited. On December 17, 2017, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Trenton Police Detectives Nicholas Mahan and Brieer Doggett responded to a ShotSpotter^[1] report and a radio call about gunfire near the area of 160 Oakland Street. As the detectives were en route to Oakland Street, a second ShotSpotter report identified gunfire near 400 Rutherford Avenue. While in transit to Rutherford Avenue, the detectives received a radio call that the suspect was in "a dark colored car with tinted windows."

As the detectives approached a stop sign at the intersection of Oakland and Prospect Street, Mahan saw a dark-colored vehicle with tinted windows coming up Prospect from the direction of Rutherford. As the vehicle made a "hurried" left turn onto Oakland, Mahan shined his flashlight into the driver's-side window of the vehicle and confirmed the vehicle was dark-colored with tinted windows. Mahan observed defendant, who was driving, "lean back, lean over to the right like [he was] try[ing] to avoid any . . . eye contact." After a brief conversation with Doggett, Mahan made a U-turn and proceeded onto Oakland with the intent to conduct a vehicle stop. As Mahan completed the U-turn defendant's vehicle turned right onto Alden Avenue. When the detectives reached the intersection of Oakland and Alden defendant's vehicle was stopped, and Mahan saw "a black object go out the driver's side window" and land in the street away from the car. Defendant's vehicle then accelerated towards

Pennington Avenue.

The detectives approached the area where defendant's vehicle had been stopped. As Doggett continued to observe defendant's vehicle driving down Alden, Mahan shined his flashlight on the discarded object and saw it was a handgun. Doggett radioed other police units the direction defendant's vehicle was travelling, and Mahan drove after defendant's vehicle. Observing the vehicle stopped in traffic, Mahan activated his car's police lights and sirens with the intent to conduct "a felony stop" and arrest defendant in connection with the discarded handgun. Defendant pulled his vehicle over to the side of the road. Over a loudspeaker, the detectives ordered defendant to shut the car off. Defendant complied, rolled down a window, stuck his head out, and said, "whatever it is you think I did, I didn't do." The detectives ordered defendant to throw his keys out of the window; he complied.

With assisting officers present with their weapons drawn, Mahan approached defendant's vehicle, grabbed defendant's hands, and removed him from the vehicle. As Mahan removed defendant, he smelled gunpowder emanating from defendant. Another officer placed defendant in handcuffs, searched him, found in his pocket live rounds of ammunition, and arrested him accordingly.

The detectives retrieved the discarded handgun in the same area where they had seen it land. According to Mahan, the gun smelled like it had just been fired. Mahan found in the magazine of the gun a live round matching the ammunition found in defendant's pocket.

Defendant subsequently moved to suppress physical evidence. Mahan and defendant testified at the suppression hearing. Defendant denied discarding anything from his vehicle and stated the ammunition found in his pocket belonged to a friend. He asserted he was not handcuffed until after the bullets were found in his pocket.

In a comprehensive opinion placed on the record, Judge Peter E. Warshaw, Jr., denied defendant's motion. Finding Mahan had testified "in a highly credible manner," Judge Warshaw characterized him as being "truthful, forthcoming and worthy of belief." Although he believed defendant to be "credible in some aspects," Judge Warshaw concluded defendant "in certain critical areas . . . intend[ed] through his testimony to deceive and . . . was not worthy of belief on certain very critical issues." For example, he "emphatically" did not believe defendant's denial of discarding anything from his vehicle.

Judge Warshaw held the State had proven the validity of the vehicle stop, establishing the detectives had an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a criminal or motor vehicle violation had occurred. Based on Mahan's account of how these events developed, Judge Warshaw found the detectives had "multiple articulable bases" to stop defendant's vehicle. The detectives witnessed defendant stop the car and discard a dark object, which they quickly identified as a handgun, giving them "even more reason to stop the car." Based on these findings, Judge Warshaw concluded defendant had abandoned the handgun and that the ammunition was "clearly acquired by search incident to arrest."

In this appeal, defendant argues:

THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP DEFENDANT'S CAR BASED UPON VAGUE INFORMATION THAT A BLACK CAR WITH TINTED WINDOWS HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING AND THAT DEFENDANT HAD TURNED HIS HEAD WHEN AN OFFICER SHINED HIS FLASHLIGHT IN HIS EYES. ACCORDINGLY, THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

Generally we uphold a trial court's factual findings made in connection with a motion to suppress when "those findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record." State v. Gamble, 218 N.J. 412, 424 (2014). We defer to a trial court's factual findings because they are "informed by [the court's] first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses." State v. Lentz, 463 N.J.Super. 54, 67 (App. Div. 2020); see also State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 380 (2017) (noting criminal-part trial judges routinely hear and decide suppression motions and "have ongoing experience and expertise in fulfilling the role of factfinder"). "[A] trial court's factual findings should not be overturned merely because an appellate court disagrees with the inferences drawn and the evidence accepted by the trial court," S.S., 229 N.J. at 374, but only if the findings are "so clearly mistaken that the interests of justice demand intervention and...