NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted October 7, 2013.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cape May County, Indictment No. 10-08-00517.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Sylvia M. Orenstein, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Robert L. Taylor, Cape May County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (J. Vincent Molitor, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Ashrafi and Leone.
Defendant Alex Jones appeals from his conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled dangerous substance after a jury found that he fled from a police officer and discarded a cigarette pack that contained rock cocaine. We affirm.
Defendant raises the following arguments on appeal:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS BECAUSE THE POLICE LACKED A REASONABLE AND ARTICULABLE BASIS TO SUSPECT THE DEFENDANT OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT ATTENUATION TO REMOVE THE TAINT OF THE POLICE MISCONDUCT. MOREOVER, THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THAT EVIDENCE SEIZED AFTER THE DEFENDANT WAS UNJUSTIFIABLY DETAINED HAD BEEN ABANDONED. (Partially Raised Below).
A. Because the Judge's Findings of Facts Contained Inaccuracies, They Are Not Entitled to Deference.
B. The Trial Judge Erred in Finding that the Officer Possessed the Requisite Reasonable, Particularized, Articulable Suspicion to Justify an Investigatory Stop.
C. Even if the Officer Had Reasonable Suspicion to Stop the Defendant for the Crime of Obstruction or Eluding, the Fruits of that Seizure Were Not Sufficiently Attenuated from the Initial Unconstitutional Stop to Cleanse Them from the Taint of that Illegal Seizure and, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed.
D. State Failed to Establish that the Evidence with Which the Defendant Was Charged Was Knowingly and Voluntarily Abandoned.
THE PROSECUTOR'S REPEATED MISCONDUCT DURING SUMMATION DEPRIVED THE DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL. U.S. CONST., Amend. VI, XIV; N.J. Const., Art. I, para. 1, 9, and 10. (Not Raised Below).
TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE DEFENDANT'S PREJUDICE BY GIVING THE INSTRUCTION ON FAILURE TO TESTIFY WITHOUT THE ...