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 of New Jersey v. Omar Johnson

April 24, 2012

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
OMAR JOHNSON, A/K/A FRANKLIN JOHNSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Municipal Appeal No. 0009-10.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted February 8, 2012 -

Before Judges Lihotz and Waugh.

Defendant Omar Johnson appeals from his conviction on one count of defiant trespass, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3(b). We affirm.

I.

We discern the following facts and procedural history from the record on appeal.

On March 2009, Johnson entered the Borgata Hotel Casino & Spa (Borgata) in Atlantic City. Joseph Garofolo, who was employed by Borgata, approached Johnson and told him he would be charged with defiant trespass. According to Garofolo, Johnson had been evicted from the casino on several prior occasions and was not permitted to be there. At one point during the confrontation, according to Garofolo, Johnson lunged at him and pushed him in the chest. He subsequently "elbowed" Garofolo in the stomach. Johnson was charged with defiant trespass and simple assault, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a).

Following a trial in the Atlantic City municipal court on January 15, 2010, Johnson was convicted on both offenses. He appealed to the Law Division. A trial de novo on the municipal court record was held on April 26, 2010. The Law Division judge found Johnson guilty of defiant trespass, but acquitted him of simple assault. The judge imposed a custodial sentence of thirty days, in addition to fines and penalties. This appeal followed.

II.

Johnson raises the following issues on appeal:

I. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY REFUSING TO PERMIT THE DEFENDANT TO GIVE TESTIMONY.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING THE RECORDS OF PREVIOUS EVICTIONS AND RELATED TESTIMONY.

III. THE ADMISSION OF RECORDS AND QUESTIONING OF THE DEFENDANT THAT RELATED TO PRIOR BAD ACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ...


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.