On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, No. FJ-09-2130-06.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Wefing and Collester.
The trial court adjudicated J.W. a delinquent for committing an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery. N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1. The trial court sentenced J.W. to six months on probation. J.W. has appealed. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
In the early evening of December 30, 2005, two cousins, Jordan and Kevin Mackiewicz walked to a store near to Jordan's home in Bayonne to purchase some video games. On their return trip, four youths approached them under an overpass just beyond a Burger King. While two watched, another pushed Jordan against the wall of the overpass and grabbed the bag he was holding which contained the games he had just bought. The fourth took an iPod from Jordan's pocket. All four then returned to the Burger King. Kevin called his mother on his cell phone, who, in turn, called the police.
The police responded promptly, including an officer who happened to be on duty at the Burger King. A patrol car located two boys nearby who were detained. Jordan was driven over and a flashlight was used to illuminate the faces of the two. He immediately identified the two as the perpetrators. Two other boys were also detained; those he identified as the two who had watched the robbery.
The four boys were taken to police headquarters, as were Jordan and Kevin. Jordan and Kevin testified that at police headquarters, they each separately identified the same two boys as having been involved in the robbery. Based upon that, the other two boys were released. At trial, Jordan and Kevin each identified J.W. as the boy who had pushed Jordan up against the wall.
J.W. and his co-defendant each testified, and each denied any involvement in the robbery. They both said that the other two boys had committed it. J.W. said he had remained in the Burger King eating his food while his co-defendant said he went outside to watch but took no part in what happened. Both J.W. and his co-defendant denied that there had been any further identification of them at the police station.
On appeal, J.W. raises the following issues:
POINT I DEFENDANT IS INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES AND WAS MISIDENTIFIED AS THE PERPETRATOR
POINT II THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONFRONT A CRUCIAL WITNESS
POINT III THE LOWER COURT'S VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF ...