Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Bailey

November 1, 2007

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
TERRI E. BAILEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 06-04-0916.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 3, 2007

Before Judges Payne and Messano.

Defendant Terri Bailey appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence that followed a jury's verdict finding him guilty of second-degree eluding, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b, and third-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(2). At sentencing, the judge merged the latter charge into the eluding conviction and imposed a sentence of nine years imprisonment, with a four and one-half year period of parole ineligibility, along with the appropriate financial penalties.

Defendant raises the following points for our consideration:

POINT I THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW . . . WAS VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S INCOMPLETE, ERRONEOUS, AND PREJUDICIAL INSTRUCTION ON THE LAW OF ELUDING. (Not Raised Below).

POINT II THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT[S] TO CONFRONTATION . . . WERE VIOLATED BY THE ADMISSION OF THE PAPER ALLEGATIONS.

POINT III THE TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW . . . BY FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE AND HINDERING APPREHENSION.

POINT IV THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW . . . WAS VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO GIVE THE JURY A COMPLETE INSTRUCTION ON THE LAW OF CREDIBILITY, INCLUDING THE LAW OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS. (Partially Raised Below).

POINT V THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTION ALLOWED A VERDICT OF GUILTY ON THE CHARGE OF ELUDING WITHOUT JURORS REACHING A[N] UNANIMOUS VERDICT . . . . (Not Raised Below).

POINT VI THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW . . . WAS VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S ERRONEOUS, ONE-SIDED, PREJUDICIAL INSTRUCTION ON THE LAW OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. (Not Raised Below).

POINT VII THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WAS VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL INSTRUCTION ON THE LAW OF OTHER-CRIME EVIDENCE. (Not Raised Below).

POINT VIII THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES . . . WAS VIOLATED BY THE UNLAWFUL DETENTION AND INVESTIGATION OF THE DEFENDANT. (Not Raised Below).

POINT IX THE DEFENDANT'S SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE.

This last point is restated in defendant's pro-se supplemental brief which also contains the following ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.