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. Arroyo

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

June 27, 2013

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANTONIO L. ARROYO, Defendant-Appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted June 4, 2013

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Indictment No. 11-03-0714.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Stephen William Kirsch, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Deborah Bartolomey, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Before Judges Reisner and Yanotti.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Antonio Arroyo was convicted of third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1), and fourth-degree charges of obstructing the administration of law, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1, and resisting arrest by flight, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(2). The trial court sentenced defendant on the CDS conviction to an extended term of eight years in prison, half to be served without parole. After merger, the court sentenced defendant to a concurrent term of eighteen months for obstructing the administration of law.

Defendant appeals from the conviction and the sentence, raising the following arguments:

1. THE JUDGE BOTH INAPPROPRIATELY FAILED TO ENFORCE A SUBPOENA ON A DEFENSE WITNESS AND APPEARS TO HAVE SCARED THAT WITNESS AWAY FROM COURT WHEN HE DEMANDED THAT THE WITNESS SHOW UP WITH A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND SOCIAL SECURITY CARD BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO TESTIFY. (Partially Raised Below).
2. THE JUDGE IMPROPERLY INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT HE HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE OF THE PROPRIETY OF THE POLICE ACTION IN THIS CASE. (Not Raised Below).
3. THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

In a supplemental pro se brief, defendant presents the following additional arguments: (1) he was denied the right to confront the State's chemist at trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment; (2) the trial court erred in admitting the State's laboratory certificate without showing pre-trial reliability of the methodology underlying the report because there was no live witness; (3) his due process right was violated when the State did not provide the laboratory ...


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.