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. Self

October 12, 2010

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MARLON J. SELF, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 06-06-0888.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted September 15, 2010

Before Judges Axelrad, R. B. Coleman and Lihotz.

Defendant Marlon J. Self appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, for the third-degree offenses of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(13) (count one), possession of a CDS with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5a(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(13) (count two), and possession of a CDS, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (count three). Defendant also appeals from the imposed sentence.

On appeal defendant presents these issues for our consideration:

POINT I

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ADMIT IN EVIDENCE IDENTIFICATION RECORDS THAT WERE NOT PROPERLY PRESERVED AND THAT DENIED MR. SELF THE ABILITY TO CHALLENGE AND RECONSTRUCT IDENTIFICATION.

POINT II

THE COURT'S FAILURE TO APPLY THE 14TH AMENDMENT FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS STANDARD TO MR. SELF'S AUDIO TAPE STATEMENTS DENIED HIM A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS, IT WAS PLAIN ERROR, NOT RAISED [BELOW.]

POINT III

UNDULY SUGGESTIVE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES TAINTED THE IN-COURT IDENTIFICATION OF MR. SELF AND WERE NOT BASED ON VIEWINGS AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME, THE[IR] ADMISSION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

POINT IV

IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE IN MR. SELF'S CASE LACKED RELIABILITY AND THE VIDEO'S PROBATIVE VALUE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY OUTWEIGHED BY THE RISK OF PREJUDICE, IT WAS PLAIN ERROR TO ADMIT THEM, NOT RAISED [BELOW.]

POINT V

SHAW'S DATA BASE IDENTIFICATION AND FALSE AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE WERE ACTS IN BAD FAITH THAT DENIED MR. SELF DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT IS REQUIRED, PLAIN ERROR, NO[T] RAISED BELOW.

POINT VI A

THE ADMISSION OF VOICE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE WITHOUT A COMPARATIVE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE VIOLATED MR. SELF'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL, IT WAS PLAIN ERROR, NOT RAISED BELOW.

POINT VI B

IT WAS PLAIN ERROR TO ADMIT THE USE OF A VIDEOTAPE WHEN IT WAS NOT AN ACCURATE . . . [MISSING SENTENCE] THAT MR. SELF SOLD DRUGS, NOT RAISED BELOW.

POINT VII

SHAW'S DATA BASE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS A CRITICAL STAGE IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS THAT DENIED MR. SELF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND A FAIR ...


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.