On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 06-06-2175.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Lisa, Reisner and Alvarez.
Defendant Christopher Evans appeals from his conviction on four counts of first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2, 2C:15-1. The jury acquitted him of two weapons charges, and the State withdrew a felony murder charge after the jury deadlocked on that count.*fn1 Defendant also appeals from the aggregate sentence of thirty years in prison, subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2.
On this appeal, defendant raises the following issues:
POINT I: EVANS'S MOTION FOR A WADE HEARING REGARDING THE OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS IMPERMISSIBLY SUGGESTIVE. (Partially Raised Below)
A. Failure To Utilize An Independent Officer To Conduct The Photographic Identification Procedure Was A Material Violation Of Section IA Of The Guidelines.
B. Failure To Record The Necessary Details Of The Photographic Identification Procedure Was A Material Violation Of Section II Of The Guidelines As Well As Contrary to State v. Delgado.
POINT II: EVANS'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION AND THE RULES OF EVIDENCE WERE VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S ADMISSION OF CELLULAR TELEPHONE REPORTS INTO EVIDENCE. U.S. CONST., AMENDS VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947), ART. 1, PARA. 10. (Partially Raised Below)
A. The Evidence Does Not Satisfy The "Business Record" Exception To The General Ban On Hearsay.
B. Admission Of The Evidence Violated Evans's Rights To Confrontation.
POINT III: E VANS'S RIGHTS TO PROPER DISCOVERY, DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND THE ABILITY TO PREPARE A DEFENSE UNDER U.S. CONST., AMENDS VI, XIV WERE VIOLATED WHEN DETECTIVE C. SMITH DESTROYED HIS NOTES ONE MONTH BEFORE THE TRIAL.
POINT IV: REVERSAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ERRORS SET FORTH IN POINTS I THROUGH III, SUPRA. point V: THE TRIAL COURT'S IMPOSITION OF AN AGGREGATE THIRTY YEAR SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT, SUBJECT TO THE NO EARLY RELEASE ACT, ...