State v. Singh

245 N.J. 1

243 A.3d 662

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Amrit SINGH, a/k/a Andy Singh, Defendant-Appellant.

A-37 September Term 2019

083236

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued September 29, 2020

Decided January 21, 2021

Margaret McLane, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Margaret McLane, of counsel and on the briefs).

Nancy A. Hulett, Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Nancy A. Hulett, of counsel and on the briefs).

Frank Muroski, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Frank Muroski, of counsel and on the brief).

JUSTICE FERNANDEZ-VINA delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, the Court must decide whether a detective's testimony at the trial of defendant Amrit Singh violated N.J.R.E. 701 and requires reversal of defendant's convictions. Specifically, we consider whether it was plain error for the trial court to allow the detective to make two references to "the defendant" in narrating the surveillance footage of a robbery for the jury. We must also decide whether the detective's testimony concerning defendant's sneakers violated N.J.R.E. 701, when the sneakers and the surveillance video were both admitted into evidence.

N.J.R.E. 701 provides that a lay witness's opinion testimony "may be admitted if it: (a) is rationally based on the witness’ perception; and (b) will assist in understanding the witness’ testimony or determining a fact in issue." Here, the issue is whether N.J.R.E. 701 was violated when a testifying detective referenced the suspect seen in surveillance footage of a robbery as "the defendant" and stated that the sneakers worn by the suspect in the surveillance video looked similar to those retrieved from defendant the night he was arrested.

The Appellate Division found that the detective's narration of the surveillance footage was inadmissible lay opinion testimony under N.J.R.E. 701 and that his identification of defendant as the robber was improper. The court held, however, that such errors did not amount to plain error because "the circumstantial evidence culminating in defendant's arrest was compelling." The Appellate Division did not address the detective's testimony that the sneakers he saw on the video looked similar to those worn by the defendant the night he was arrested.

We now affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division. The detective should not have referenced defendant in his summary of the surveillance footage. Here, however, that fleeting reference did not amount to plain error in light of the other evidence produced. And the detective's testimony regarding the sneakers was proper. He saw the sneakers on the video prior to testifying and had first-hand knowledge of what the sneakers looked like because he saw defendant wearing them on the night of his arrest. N.J.R.E. 701 requires only that testimony be rationally based on the witness's perception and that such testimony help the jury.

I.

A.

We begin by summarizing the pertinent facts and procedural history. On January 20, 2015, Kamlesh Shah was working as a cashier at a gas station in Metuchen. Shah testified that just before 10:20 p.m., a man entered the store wielding a machete and told Shah to give him the money. Shah described the man who threatened him with the large machete as thin and wearing dark clothes and gloves; Shah could not describe the man's face because it was completely covered. Shah complied with the man's request for the money, and the man fled toward Route 1 South. The events were captured on the gas station's surveillance video, which police retrieved that night.

Shah called the police, and two officers, Officer Jeian Rastegarpanah and his partner, were dispatched to the scene. The suspect was described as a male wearing dark clothing.

After arriving at nearby apartments, about a quarter mile from the gas station, the officers noticed an individual with his back turned toward them who was wearing dark clothing. The suspect turned and ran, and the officers chased after him on foot. Officer Rastegarpanah testified that he saw the suspect's face for "maybe a second, half a second" because the suspect turned his head only briefly before fleeing. Officer Rastegarpanah separated from his partner during the chase and notified police headquarters that they "[l]ost sight of a black male wearing a black hoodie." He also testified that the suspect dropped a shopping bag mid-chase. Officer Rastegarpanah eventually lost sight of the suspect during the chase and consequently decided to search a nearby area.

Officer Rastegarpanah entered the yard of a nearby house, the side gate of which was open, and noticed a black sweatshirt on the ground. Continuing further around the back of the house, Officer Rastegarpanah found an individual with his back against the house, sweating and breathing heavily. That individual -- later identified as defendant -- was wearing dark clothing, and Officer Rastegarpanah testified his height was similar to that of the suspect he had chased moments earlier. Officer Rastegarpanah ordered defendant to get on the ground, but defendant refused, stating he was "just trying to score some drugs." Officer Rastegarpanah wrestled defendant to the ground and ordered him to put his hands behind his back. Detective Jorge Quesada, who also responded to the dispatch, heard Officer Rastegarpanah giving commands nearby and jumped a fence to help subdue defendant.

The officers arrested and searched defendant, finding no weapons. Defendant was taken to a hospital. In the backyard where defendant was arrested, crime-scene investigators found a jacket with a wallet in one of its pockets; it contained a foil packet that later tested positive for Suboxone, a controlled dangerous substance. In the area where Officer Rastegarpanah arrested defendant, investigators found a "Hello Kitty" cap, a machete, and a plastic bag with the robbery proceeds. Back at the hospital, police took a sweatshirt, one glove from the sweatshirt's pocket, and sneakers with a white sole and stripes from defendant, among other items. Investigators could not recover fingerprints from the scene, and DNA testing of the "Hello Kitty" cap was inconclusive as to whether it belonged to defendant.

B.

Defendant was charged with first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 ; third-degree theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3 ; third-degree possession of a knife for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d) ; fourth-degree unlawful possession of a knife, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d) ; third-degree resisting arrest by force, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(3) ; fourth-degree resisting arrest by flight, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(2) ; fourth-degree obstruction, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 ; and fourth-degree certain persons not to have weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(a).

At trial, Shah narrated the gas station's surveillance footage for the jury. He stated he was unable to see the robber's face. Detective Quesada testified next, outlining his role in the investigation and testifying to the events leading up to defendant's arrest. He also narrated the gas station's surveillance footage, which he reviewed before testifying.

The following exchange occurred between Detective Quesada and the prosecutor:

[Prosecutor:] Let's start with Camera 7, Detective. Can you utilize the laser pointer, and describe for the jury what's depicted there?

[Quesada:] This is where the suspect is approaching the gas station, the inside store.

....

[Quesada:] Right over here he's about [to] enter the doors into the store area of the gas station.

....

[Quesada:] That's him walking towards the front register, right here. ....

[Quesada:] That's when the defendant is there pointing the knife at the gas station attendant.

[Prosecutor:] And then it's picked up on the -- the rest of the incident is on -- what camera is that?

[Quesada:] That's going to be Camera 8. Right here he's demanding for the money, and pointing the knife at the -- at the victim.

Defense counsel did not object to that testimony. Detective Quesada was then shown another exhibit with different surveillance footage from the gas station and was asked to narrate it:

[Quesada:] The suspect, at the first shot, was him coming around the dumpster area of the gas station, coming around the store, and then coming up into the front door here. He's walking in, you see him going to the right. And as he approaches with the knife in front of the victim's body there. He opens the door, starts demanding the money, and I -- I believe that he instructed him -- he knew about the second register, the second drawer, to get the money out of that drawer also.

[Prosecutor:] Detective, do you see the defendant's shoes depicted in this picture?

[Quesada:] Yeah. Right here you have white soles at the bottom, with three stripes going down the side. You can see the white sole on his right shoe also.

....

[Prosecutor:] Detective, I'm going to show you what has been marked as S (indiscernible) that's S-4.... Can you describe what S-4 is for the jury, please?

[Quesada:] These were the sneakers that the defendant was wearing at the time of his arrest, and these are the sneakers -- [Defense counsel:] Objection, Judge. Can we be heard[?]

(Sidebar begins at 3:48:27 p.m.)

[Defense counsel:] (indiscernible)

THE COURT: He can say the [sic] look like the sneakers he seeks [sic] in the video. He can say that.

(Sidebar ends at 3:48:46 p.m.)

THE COURT: Overruled. Lead him, [prosecutor].

....

[Prosecutor:] Detective, so, again, were those the sneakers that were on the defendant when he was arrested?

[Quesada:] Yes, sir.

....

[Prosecutor:] Okay. And are those sneakers similar to the sneakers that you just observed -- we observed here in court today, on video?

[Quesada:] Yes, sir.

Detective Quesada's testimony continued the next day. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked whether the gloves...