Evidence

State v. Legette – Important Clarification of the Ability of Police to Seize Evidence During an Investigatory Stop

February 5, 2017 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

While investigating a noise complaint at an apartment complex, an officer observed James Legette standing on a common porch. The officer approached and Legette partially opened a door leading into his area. The officer then smelled burnt marijuana, entered the porch area, and identified himself as an officer. As Legette began to walk away, the officer requested identification. Legette responded that he had to retrieve his identification from the apartment, and the officer replied that he would have to accompany him. Legette entered the apartment and the officer followed. The officer noticed a bulge in Legette’s sweatshirt.

After entering the apartment, Legette presented his identification and the officer radioed a request to check for outstanding arrest warrants. Legette them removed his sweatshirt and asked a woman who was in the apartment to place it in the bedroom. The officer then seized the sweatshirt from the bedroom and took Legette, who appeared anxious, outside. Obviously, the officer did not have a search warrant.

The arrest warrant check was negative, and Legette did not consent to a search of the sweatshirt. The officer had a police dog sniff the sweatshirt. A “metallic” noise could be heard when the dog moved the sweatshirt. The officer then discovered a loaded handgun in the sweatshirt. Continue reading ›

State v. Hannah – Admitting Social Media Postings into Evidence at Trial

January 16, 2017 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

Arnett Blake, his girlfriend Cindy Edwards, and his former girlfriend Terri Hannah, all attended a party in Vineland, New Jersey. At some point, Edwards encountered Hannah in the bathroom. While there, Hannah allegedly made rude remarks about Edwards. Hannah then left the bathroom and told Blake that she should “F___ [his] girlfriend up”. Later, when Edwards and Blake tried to leave the party, Hannah approached Blake with a closed fist. Blake pushed her away, and security detained him. Edwards was then going to say something, but saw Hannah holding a high-heeled shoe. Hannah hit Edwards in the face with the shoe. Blake saw Hannah hit Edwards. When Hannah was escorted out, Edwards saw she was not wearing shoes. Hannah and Edwards later exchanged communications on Twitter which included a Tweet from Hannah saying, among other things, “shoe to ya face bitch.”

Hannah was charged with simple assault and proceeded to trial in municipal court. There, she testified that she approached Blake at the party because she heard rumors that she planned to hurt Edwards, and she wanted to be sure that Blake understood that this was untrue. She also testified that she was escorted from the party when she started yelling, that she did not see Edwards that night, and that she never hit anyone with a shoe. This testimony was somewhat supported by that of a security guard who removed Hannah from the party and instructed her to not return, but also did not see her hit anyone with a shoe.

The municipal judge found Hannah guilty and, after a trial de novo, a Superior Court judge did the same. Hannah then appealed her conviction to the Appellate Division. Continue reading ›

Murder Conviction Based Upon Hearsay Testimony Reinstated by New Jersey Supreme Court

July 24, 2016 | By James S. Friedman, LLC

On September 20, 1992, the police received reports that someone had fallen from a 12-story cliff near the New Jersey Palisades. They arrived in the area and found Stephen Scharf, who told them they he and his wife, Jody, were having a picnic before going to a comedy club in New York City. Scharf also stated that they were drinking in their car, and then went to a lookout area described as their “spot”. Finally, Scharf told the police that while he was getting a blanket and more drinks from their vehicle, Jody fell from the rocks. Jody’s body was later found, and her blood alcohol content was 0.12. At that time, the medical examiner could not determine a cause of death.

Other facts undermined Scharf’s story. Jody was seeking to divorce him, alleging that he was abusive and unfaithful. Further, at some point within the past year, Scharf had taken out a $500,000 life insurance policy on Jody. Because of such facts, the case was reviewed again in 2004. Finding that Jody’s injuries (primarily to her face) were inconsistent with falling off a cliff, the medical examiner changed the cause of death to homicide. The medical examiner further determined that Jody was thrown from the cliff, and had hit a tree as she dropped down.

During trial, a number of individuals who knew Jody testified that her husband was abusive, and that she was afraid of both him and heights. Jody was also seeing a therapist who testified that Jody had previously refused to accompany her husband to the cliffs, and that she never visited the area before. One witness also testified that Jody had informed her that Scharf had refused to sign certain papers related to the pending divorce, and that he would “see her dead” before signing them. The couple’s son also testified that Jody did not want to go to dinner alone with her husband. Continue reading ›