Opinion
A-1546-21
10-25-2023
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROLAND E. AMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief.) Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (David M. Liston, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
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.
Submitted September 18, 2023
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment Nos. 15-01-0110 and 15-01-0115.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Steven M. Gilson, Designated Counsel, on the brief.)
Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (David M. Liston, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Natali.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Roland E. Amos appeals from an October 21, 2021 Law Division order denying his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) without an evidentiary hearing and his motion to compel DNA testing. We affirm.
I.
We first briefly summarize the relevant facts which are provided in greater detail in our unpublished opinion affirming defendant's conviction and sentence. See State v. Amos, No. A-4777-16T1 (App. Div. May 13, 2019), certif. denied 240 N.J. 77 (2019). We then address the procedural history related to defendant's PCR petition and motion and the additional factual background related to those applications.
Defendant was charged in two indictments with multiple, serious offenses. In the first, he was charged with first-degree murder of Brian Hoey, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) or (2), with the aggravating factor of committing murder to escape detection, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:11- 3(b)(4)(f); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a); second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b); two counts of third-degree witness tampering, N.J.S.A. 2C:28- 5(a)(1) and (a)(2); two counts of third-degree hindering apprehension or prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1) and (b)(4); and second-degree hindering apprehension or prosecution, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(3). In the second indictment, defendant was charged with second-degree certain persons not to possess weapons, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b).
Following two jury trials, defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder, but not guilty of the aggravating factor. Defendant was also found guilty of possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, witness tampering, hindering his own apprehension or prosecution, and the certain persons offense.
The charges relate to an incident that occurred in the early morning hours of September 1, 2014, when Hoey was shot multiple times while standing outside his townhouse in North Brunswick smoking a cigarette. At 1:26 a.m., P.P., called 9-1-1, and an officer from the North Brunswick Police Department (NBPD) responded to the scene. Efforts to save Hoey's life were unsuccessful, and he died at 1:54 a.m. at the hospital.
Detective Bree Curran of the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office (MCPO) arrived at Hoey's townhouse and, when canvassing the scene, discovered seven .45 caliber shell casings and six .45 caliber projectiles or projectile fragments, later determined to have all been fired from the same gun. Detective Curran also photographed and collected three cigarette butts, one of which was the brand Hoey smoked, and which was still burning on the sidewalk when police arrived. All three cigarettes were sent for DNA testing, but the results did not match Hoey or defendant, nor did they match any individual in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
Around 3:50 a.m., when defendant, who was known as "Universal," attempted to enter his townhouse located next door to Hoey's, Detective Robert Powell of the NBPD and Detective Gregory Morris of the MCPO asked him from where he was coming. Defendant said he had been with S.S., and later at a barbecue in Newark.
Defendant was in possession of two cell phones and, when requested, voluntarily provided police with the phones and associated numbers. Police later obtained cell phone records for one of the phones, and at trial the State called an expert who confirmed the accuracy of defendant's cell phone records. The expert also stated defendant's cell phone records revealed one of defendant's phones was in the area of Hoey's residence at 12:42 a.m. and 3:42 a.m., and in Clark, New Jersey, at 1:53 a.m.
On September 4, 2014, Powell interviewed S.S., who initially provided an alibi for defendant. Specifically, S.S. said she and defendant had gone to dinner the night before Hoey was murdered, and thereafter, went shopping for a car. Afterwards, she stated she and defendant stopped at a liquor store and at approximately 8:30 p.m., he left to go to a barbecue. At 10:50 p.m. S.S. told the police defendant called her and said he needed a ride home from Newark.
S.S. also stated she drove to Newark and picked up defendant and they went to her apartment in Rahway, arriving there shortly after midnight. S.S. informed the police between 12:30 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., defendant walked to a donut shop to get a coffee and called S.S. on his way to see if she wanted anything. S.S. stated at 3:15 a.m., she drove defendant to his townhouse in North Brunswick, which took twenty-five to thirty minutes.
On October 2, 2014, the police confronted S.S. with information they had obtained from defendant's cell phone records, and which contradicted S.S.'s version of events. Despite telling S.S. they did not believe she was telling the truth, S.S. initially repeated substantially the same story. Shortly thereafter, however, S.S. admitted her initial statement was false.
In her recanted statement, S.S. told detectives after she went to dinner with defendant, he left around 8:00 p.m. to go to the barbecue, and she did not see him again until approximately 1:53 a.m., when he called and said, "open the door, I'm coming." S.S. testified defendant arrived at her apartment two or three minutes after he called her.
According to S.S., defendant entered her apartment and removed his shirt and placed it in a plastic bag. At his request, S.S. also retrieved a shoebox. S.S. also agreed to drive to his mother's house in Newark, where they drove in separate cars.
As they were driving through Irvington, defendant signaled for S.S. to pull over by flashing his high beams. They stopped behind a strip mall, and although S.S. did not see what defendant did when he got out of his car, she believed he threw the garbage bag and shoebox into a dumpster. They proceeded to Newark, where defendant parked his car at his mother's house and S.S. then drove defendant to his townhouse in North Brunswick. S.S. told the police she never saw a gun.
S.S. also informed the detectives she was aware defendant had a "run in" with Hoey, his neighbor, and as a result, the police came to defendant's home. Defendant told S.S. the incident had been "bothering him," but he had "taken care of" the problem. In addition, defendant told S.S. the police "ha[d] nothing on [him]" and "[t]hey're not going to find the gun." He urged her "to be strong" and "go with the story." S.S. told the police she initially lied to them because she was scared of defendant who threatened her when he stated, "if I felt like you were telling on me or doing anything to get me jammed up, I would have [] killed you."
The State called S.S. as a witness at trial. She initially testified she did not recall providing a statement to the detectives, and later stated she could not remember previously what she told them. After conducting a Gross hearing, the court permitted the State to introduce S.S.'s prior statement at trial.
P.P. testified regarding defendant's prior run in with Hoey. She stated approximately eleven months before Hoey was killed, defendant gave Hoey money and asked him to purchase money orders.
Officer James Karas of the NBPD provided further testimony regarding the counterfeit allegation. He stated on October 3, 2013, he arrested Hoey at a Walmart store and charged him with attempting to use ten counterfeit one-hundred-dollar bills to buy money orders. Hoey told Karas that "Universal" gave him the money and asked him to buy the money orders as a favor.
Detective Michael Braun of the NBPD interviewed Hoey after Karas arrested him. Braun similarly testified that Hoey identified defendant as the person who gave him the counterfeit money and he showed Braun a text message in which defendant had asked him to purchase two $500 money orders at Walmart in exchange for "a gift."
Braun also testified that in October 2013, defendant's roommate consented to a search of the residence, but that the police did not locate any counterfeit money. When the roommate told defendant about the search, "[h]e wasn't happy," but she stated she never saw defendant with a gun or with counterfeit money and never observed any animosity between defendant and Hoey.
The State also called Dr. Alex Zhang, the Middlesex County assistant medical examiner, who performed Hoey's autopsy. It was Dr. Zhang's opinion Hoey was shot from a distance of more than three feet because there was no gunpowder stippling, soot, or muzzle imprints on Hoey's body. As such, Dr. Zhang explained the evidence did not indicate a "close range" or "intermediate range" shooting. On cross-examination, Dr. Zhang maintained none of the bullets that hit Hoey were fired from "within three feet," as "there was no evidence to indicate any shot . . . show[ed] [a] close range [shooting]," but conceded he could not "definitely" say the bullets were fired from beyond three feet.
Dr. Zhang also stated Hoey had "small scratch injuries on [his] extremities," but there was "no way" for him to determine, one way or the other, if those injuries were defensive wounds. Finally, Dr. Zhang stated he discovered a hair on Hoey's hand which he submitted to investigating officers but was unsure it was tested for DNA.
Detective Curran also testified on behalf of the State. She was present at Hoey's autopsy and confirmed there was a hair found on Hoey's hand, but it was never tested, nor was there a request made to have the hair tested. Detective Powell stated based on the medical examiner's report, there was no evidence of a struggle between Hoey and the murderer.
Both parties' summations referenced the hair found on Hoey. Defendant's counsel highlighted its importance and argued the State's failure to test the hair for DNA demonstrated its "lack of investigation," as the possible defensive wounds on Hoey and the hair found in his hand indicated a struggle with a third- party. Defendant's counsel further argued the State could have tested the hair for DNA and compared it to the DNA from the cigarette but failed to do so.
The State responded by stressing there was "absolutely no evidence of a struggle" between Hoey and his murderer. The State further hypothesized either P.P. or Hoey's daughter could have "left a hair" on Hoey's hand, because they were "the two people who were touching him right after he was shot."