State v. Almonte – Prior Bad Acts
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
Appellate Docket No.: A-0536-18
Decided July 27, 2021
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division of New Jersey reviewed whether possession of a weapon is excluded evidence for prior bad acts when under investigation of a robbery attempt.
In State v. Almonte, Agent Chapman testified that during a sting operation conducted in late 2015 to early 2016, the DEA obtained a phone number and a code word to contact a suspected crew operating out of Philadelphia that robbed drug dealers. Because the identity of the crew members was unknown, the DEA gave the phone number to a paid CI to identify the members and infiltrate the crew.
On December 29, 2015, at the behest of the DEA, the CI contacted an individual identified as co-defendant Oviedo-Difo at the phone number acquired during the investigation. Once the CI confirmed that co-defendant Oviedo-Difo was interested in participating in a robbery, the CI arranged a meeting in New York to discuss a fabricated robbery of a stash house in the Bronx. The phone conversation between the CI and co-defendant Oviedo-Difo to arrange the meeting was recorded. According to Chapman, the DEA planned to arrest the crew members when they arrived to rob the stash house.
The CI testified that co-defendant Oviedo-Difo and an individual later identified as defendant attended the prearranged meeting in Manhattan. During the meeting, the CI informed defendants he had a contact inside an apartment containing money and drugs, and that the contact would give them access to the apartment for the robbery. The CI told defendants he would call them the day before the planned robbery and asked them how they would commit the robbery. According to the CI, co-defendant Oviedo-Difo responded that they would bring “tape and a ski mask.” When the CI specifically asked if they were “coming with guns,” both defendants responded “[o]f course” as they anticipated that the apartment occupant would be armed. The CI suggested that defendants “wear a hat and a hoodie” to conceal their identities.
The New York meeting took place in an SUV parked at a prearranged location, lasted approximately twenty minutes, and was secretly recorded by the CI, who was seated in the back seat next to defendant and had an unobstructed view of defendant. Co-defendant Oviedo-Difo sat in the driver’s seat and an unidentified male sat in the front passenger seat. The audio recording of the meeting was played for the jury during the trial and a transcript was provided as an aid.
A few weeks after the meeting, the CI called co-defendant Oviedo-Difo and told him that everything was set for the following day. On the day of the planned robbery, January 20, 2016, co-defendant Oviedo-Difo told the CI in a phone conversation that they were “getting ready to leave.” Throughout the day, Oviedo-Difo and the CI continued to communicate via telephone and the conversations were recorded.
Defendants traveled from Philadelphia in co-defendant Oviedo-Difo’s vehicle to meet the CI for the robbery in New York. However, while en route, the car began to overheat, and, at about 4:00 p.m., Oviedo-Difo told the CI that he had to pull off at a rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike. At the request of the DEA, members of the New Jersey State Police responded to the Grover Cleveland Rest Area and arrested defendants when they observed them approach the disabled vehicle described to the officers by the DEA. Although the vehicle was not surveilled when it left Philadelphia, the DEA was aware of its location through the telephonic communications between the CI and co-defendant Oviedo-Difo.
After obtaining consent from co-defendant Oviedo-Difo, the registered owner of the vehicle, Detective Czech testified that he and other unit members searched the vehicle, beginning at 6:35 p.m. The search uncovered a semiautomatic Smith and Wesson handgun2 loaded with a large capacity magazine and hollow-point bullets hidden inside a sock secreted behind the radio in the “dashboard center console compartment” of the vehicle. Neither defendant had a permit for the gun. Suspected robbery tools consisting of two black ski masks, black gloves, duct tape, zip ties, and a black hooded sweatshirt were found on the backseat. In the rear portion of the vehicle, officers recovered a bag of suspected burglary tools consisting of screwdrivers, pliers, socket wrenches, and the like.
Defendant was convicted for robbery and appealed, arguing the trial court should have excluded evidence found in the vehicle as prior bad acts under Rule 404(b). The Appellate Division found that the evidence of the gun and other evidence found in the car was intrinsic to the charged crime – robbery – and therefore admissible. The Court thus affirmed on the issue of prior bad acts.
Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act from being admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
Under State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328, 338 (1992), the Court adopted a four-prong test to screen for admissibility of other crime evidence under Rule 404(b), requiring that the evidence be “relevant to a material issue;” “similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged;” “clear and convincing;” and have “probative value” that is “not . . . outweighed by its apparent prejudice.”
“[E]vidence that is intrinsic to the charged crime is exempt from the strictures of Rule 404(b) even if it constitutes evidence of uncharged misconduct that would normally fall under Rule 404(b) because it is not evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts.” State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141, 177 (2011).
Here, proof of the planned robbery was intrinsic to proving certain statutory elements of the possessory crimes charged. To prove defendant possessed the loaded handgun found secreted in co-defendant Oviedo-Difo’s vehicle, the State had to prove defendant knew the gun was in the car.
If you or someone you know have been charged with any indictable offense or disorderly persons, contact the experienced attorney at Hark & Hark to ensure you are adequately defended, otherwise you could have negative impacts on your case like the defendant above.
At Hark & Hark, we represent clients in Superior Court for criminal matters like the present case. We vigorously defend our clients by fighting to uphold their constitutional rights, and ensure law enforcement follow proper procedures to legally make an arrest.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing criminal charges similar to this circumstance, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, Elizabeth, Edison, Woodbridge, Lakewood, Toms River, Hamilton, Trenton, Clifton, Camden, Brick, Cherry Hill, Passaic, Middletown, Union City, Old Bridge, Gloucester Township, East Orange, Bayonne, Franklin Township, North Bergen, Vineland, and Union.
Leave a Comment