No automatic obstruction here to fail to cooperate with police
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ELELAKE J. JEFFERSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Argued November 8, 2018 รข€“ Decided December 17, 2018
Before Judges Fuentes and Vernoia.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 17-06-1551.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5593-16T1
PER CURIAM
Defendant Elelake J. Jefferson, Jr., appeals from a judgment of conviction,
entered after a bench trial, finding him guilty of the disorderly persons offense
of obstructing administration of law or other governmental function in violation
of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a). Based on our review of the record, we find there is
insufficient evidence supporting the conviction, and reverse.
Defendant was charged in an indictment with fourth-degree obstruction of
the administration of law or other governmental function, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a)
(count one), third-degree possession of a stolen handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7(a)
(count two), fourth-degree possession of a defaced firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(d)
(count three), and second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A.
2C:39-5(b)(1) (count four). Defendant's trial took place over three days.
The evidence showed that on January 22, 2016, officers from the South
Orange and Montclair police departments investigated an incident in South
Orange that involved a motor vehicle. 1 At approximately 3:00 a.m., officers
went to the Montclair home defendant shared with his parents in search of the
vehicle, but it was not present in the driveway or street. A few hours later,
1
The trial record does not include any details concerning the nature or type of
the incident. The record reflects that the court made a pretrial ruling excluding
evidence at trial concerning the incident under investigation.
A-5593-16T1
2
Montclair police officers observed the vehicle in the driveway of defendant 's
home.
At approximately 7:00 a.m., South Orange Detectives Brian McGuire and
Ernesto Morillo went to the home, where they met Montclair Detectives Joe
Anderson and Pierre Falaise and other officers. The home was "recessed from
the street." In a conversation that "was not particularly loud," officers were
instructed to secure the rear of the house to ensure that no one left the house
when the detectives approached its front door.
The detectives knocked on the front door, and defendant's father, Elelake
Jefferson Sr., answered. Detective Falaise told Jefferson Sr. that the detectives
"were looking to speak with his son." It was cold outside, and the detectives
asked if they could enter the home. Jefferson Sr. allowed the detectives to enter,
where they stood in the foyer and spoke with him.
Detective Falaise testified defendant's bedroom was located off of the
hallway that extended directly from the foyer into the home. Detective Morillo
explained that Jefferson Sr. said he believed defendant was home because the
bed in the room was unmade, a space heater next to the bed was on and
defendant's keys were in the room. According to Detective Falaise, defendant
A-5593-16T1
3
did not leave the bedroom or traverse the hallway and enter the basement door
while the detectives were in the home.
As the detectives stood with Jefferson Sr. in the hallway, there was a noise
"like something falling, maybe metal, something metal hitting the ground, like
a crash." Detective Falaise asked Jefferson Sr. if anyone else was in the house,
and Jefferson Sr. said "it might be" defendant. According to Detective Falaise,
he asked Jefferson Sr. if they could "check to see if it was" defendant
"downstairs" where "[i]t sounded like [the noise] was coming from." Detective
Falaise testified Jefferson Sr. led him and Detective Anderson down the hallway
to the basement door.
As Detectives Falaise and Anderson went into the basement, they said,
"Montclair Police. Is there anyone down here?" They made the statement "to
announce [themselves] so people know that [they're] coming down," because
Detective Falaise did not "want to get injured, [because] people think [they're]
somebody else."
At the foot of the basement stairs is a "big room." Detective Falaise
walked through the room and through a doorway into another room, but did not
see defendant. He walked through another open doorway into a storage area or
closet and saw defendant standing against the wall. Detective Falaise told
A-5593-16T1
4
defendant to exit the storage area, and defendant complied. The detectives did
not place defendant under arrest, but they handcuffed him for their safety and
brought him upstairs. Detective Falaise testified defendant was cooperative and
never ran away, fled, impeded or intimidated the detectives or employed any
physical force or violence against them.
The vehicle was towed to the South Orange Police Department. A search
warrant was issued for the vehicle. During a subsequent search, Detective
Morillo recovered a handgun from the spare tire compartment of the trunk.
At the close of the State's case, the court dismissed the three weapons
charges. The court determined the State failed to present sufficient evidence
permitting a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
possessed the handgun that was found in the vehicle. See State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 458-59 (1967). The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the
obstruction charge alleged in count one.
Jefferson Sr. testified as a defense witness. He explained that he permitted
the detectives to enter his home because it was "freezing outside." He asked the
detectives to remain in the foyer and never granted them permission to enter the
basement. Jefferson Sr. said he first went into the basement to look for
A-5593-16T1
5
defendant because the detectives wanted to speak with him. He told the
detectives he did not find defendant and that defendant was not home.
In her decision from the bench, the judge found defendant did not go into
the basement after the detectives entered the home. Instead, the judge found
"defendant may have heard the police and gone downstairs" before the
detectives entered the home.
The judge further found that the detectives "yell[ed]" downstairs,
"Montclair Police. Is there anyone down here?" The judge found the basement
door was open and "assum[ed]" that if the detectives and Jefferson Sr. had been
talking upstairs, that "voices carry."
The court found that it appeared defendant "would have heard some
conversation" either while he was "in the basement or prior to the . . . detectives
coming into . . . the house." The court observed that it did not know "what was
in [defendant's] mind," but found he "chose to go down [into] the basement and
chose to secrete himself in the closet." The court further found that "as soon as
the officer called [defendant], he came out."
Based on those findings, the court concluded "there is an impairment on
[defendant's] part to obstruct" the detective's effort to question him. The court
found defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of disorderly persons
A-5593-16T1
6
obstruction under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1. Defendant, who spent 523 days in custody
awaiting trial, was sentenced to time served and the payment of fines and
penalties. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant makes the following arguments:
Point I
The Police Officers Lacked Probable Cause To Search
Through-Out The Home Of The Appellant, Elelake
Jefferson, Jr.
Point II
The State Did Not Prove The Appellant, Elelake
Jefferson, Jr., Obstructed The Administration Of Law
Or Other Governmental Function Beyond A
Reasonable Doubt.
Our review of a judge's verdict following a bench trial is limited. State v.
Miller, 449 N.J. Super. 460, 472 (App. Div. 2017), certif. granted, 234 N.J. 1
(2018). "The standard is not whether the verdict [is] against the weight of the
evidence, but rather 'whether there is sufficient credible evidence in the record
to support the judge's determination.'" Ibid. (quoting State ex rel. R.V., 280 N.J.
Super. 118, 121 (App. Div. 1995)).
We defer to the judge's findings of fact "which are substantially influenced
by [the] opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of the
case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy," State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471
A-5593-16T1
7
(1999) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)), and "do not disturb
the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are
convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the
competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests
of justice," Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484
(1974) (quoting Fagliarone v. Twp. of N. Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App.
Div. 1963)). A reviewing court, however, owes no deference to the trial court
in deciding matters of law. State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 176 (2010).
The court found defendant guilty of violating N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a), which
provides that a person commits an offense:
if he purposely obstructs, impairs or perverts the
administration of law or other governmental function or
prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from
lawfully performing an official function by means of
flight, intimidation, force, violence, or physical
interference or obstacle, or by means of any
independently unlawful act. This section does not
apply to failure to perform a legal duty other than an
official duty, or any other means of avoiding
compliance with law without affirmative interference
with governmental functions.
[ N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) (emphasis added).]
"[N]ot just any interference with the administration of law constitutes the
criminal act of obstruction." State v. Camillo, 382 N.J. Super. 113, 118 (App.
A-5593-16T1
8 Div. 2005). "Simply obstructing, impairing or perverting the administration of
law or the governmental function" does not violate N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a). Ibid.
The statute prohibits only "(1) violent or physical interference, [or] (2) other
acts which are 'unlawful' independently of the purpose to obstruct the
government." Id. at 117 (quoting Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law
Revision Commission, Vol. II, 1971, at 280). To support a conviction under
N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a), the State must prove that the obstruction is "carried out in
a manner described in the statute: 'by means of flight, intimidation, force,
violence, or physical interference or obstacle, or by means of any independently
unlawful act.'" Ibid. (emphasis added) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a)).
Here, there is no evidence defendant engaged in any acts of intimidation,
used force or violence, physically interfered with the detectives or committed
any independent unlawful act. To the contrary, Detective Falaise testified
defendant was cooperative and not violent, and acknowledged defendant did not
use force or violence and did not engage in any unlawful acts or acts of
intimidation. According to Detective Falaise, defendant was given a single
directive, to exit the storage area, and he immediately complied. Cf. State v.
Reece, 222 N.J. 154, 172 (2015) (upholding obstruction conviction where the
defendant attempted to close a door on officers as they entered to "perform an
A-5593-16T1
9
official function under the emergency-aid doctrine"); State v. Williams, 192 N.J.
1, 11 (2007) (holding the defendant violated N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) by fleeing after
being ordered by the police "to place his hands on his head for a pat-down
search"); State v. Crawley, 187 N.J. 440, 460 (2006) (holding defendant violated
N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) by fleeing after an officer ordered the defendant to stop for
questioning).
The court did not expressly identify a physical action encompassed by
N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) that supports defendant's conviction. However, a fair
reading of the court's decision reflects that the court determined defendant
committed the offense by "prevent[ing] or attempt[ing] to prevent a public
servant from lawfully performing an official function by means of flight."
N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) (emphasis added). The court's verdict is based on its
limited finding that defendant "would have heard some conversation, either
[while] in the basement or prior to the . . . detectives coming . . . into the house"
and "chose to go down [in] the basement and . . . secrete himself in the closet."2
The court's findings are not supported by substantial credible evidence.
2
The court also stated "if there was nothing to flee from there would be nothing
to flee," but did not explain the relevance of this vague observation to its fact -
findings or legal conclusion that defendant violated N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a).
A-5593-16T1
10
There is no evidence defendant "chose to go down [in] the basement" after
the detectives entered the home or after he purportedly heard Jefferson Sr.
speaking to the detectives in the foyer. To the contrary, the undisputed evidence
shows defendant was in the basement before Jefferson Sr. allowed the detectives
to enter the home. The detectives testified the basement door is located in the
hallway adjacent to the foyer where they stood speaking to Jefferson Sr., and
Detective Falaise testified defendant was not seen in the hallway going into the
basement.
The court's determination defendant committed obstruction by flight is
also based on its finding defendant "would have heard some conversation . . .
prior to the . . . detectives coming into . . . the house."3 The court's finding
defendant "would have heard" the detectives speaking outside of the home
before they entered is unsupported by any evidence. The record is bereft of
evidence the detectives had a conversation while outside defendant's home
during which anyone said defendant's name or that they were present to
administer a law or perform a government function related to defendant.
Moreover, there is no evidence defendant was present for any conversation the
3
In a similarly equivocal finding, the court stated, "I think [defendant] may
have heard the police and gone downstairs."
A-5593-16T1
11
detectives had while outside or otherwise could hear such a conversation from
the confines of his home. The lack of evidentiary support for the court's finding
defendant prevented or attempted to prevent the detectives from lawfully
performing an official function by means of purported flight into the basement
requires a reversal of his conviction. 4 See N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a).
The record also does not support the court's conclusion that defendant
violated N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) by remaining in the basement after the detectives
entered the home. The detectives did not have a warrant for defendant's arrest
and did no more than advise Jefferson Sr. that they wanted to speak with
defendant. Even assuming, as the court did, that defendant might have heard
the detectives tell Jefferson Sr. that they wanted to speak with him, defendant
was under no obligation to speak to the police or make himself available in his
own home to answer the detectives' questions. Under such circumstances,
defendant's decision to remain in the basement after the detectives expressed an
interest in speaking with him neither constituted flight nor any other physical
4
We do not suggest the court would have been correct in finding defendant
committed an offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) if the evidence showed
defendant went into the basement in response to hearing a conversation among
detectives while they were outside of his home. We need not decide the issue
because, as noted, there is no evidence there was such a conversation, defendant
heard such a conversation or that defendant went into the basement in response
to such a conversation.
A-5593-16T1
12
action obstructing the administration of law or any other government function.
See Camillo, 382 N.J. Super. at 118 (holding the defendant did not commit the
offense of obstruction under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1(a) by refusing to supply
information required by a state trooper to complete a report). The court erred
by finding otherwise.
Defendant also argues his conviction should be reversed because he was
discovered in the basement as the result of an unlawful, warrantless search of
his home. Given our reversal of defendant's conviction on other grounds, it is
unnecessary to address the contention.
Reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.