The court considers whether, under the standard set forth in State v. Daniels, 182 N.J. 80 (2004), a prosecutor in summation impermissibly accused defendant of tailoring his testimony based on what he had witnessed while attending his trial. The court also considers whether the jury's acquittal of defendant on the sexual-assault, robbery, and aggravated-assault charges required vacation of the conviction on the charge of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.
In summation, the prosecutor attacked defendant's credibility by stating defendant in his testimony had told "a story of having consent" after he "sat through this entire trial, hearing the testimony of every witness, after he heard all of the evidence against him, after having time to construct a new narrative." The court holds the prosecutor could have challenged defendant's credibility using evidence in the record but instead impermissibly attacked his credibility based on his exercise of his fundamental rights to attend his trial and confront witnesses presented against him. Pursuant to Daniels, the court vacates the convictions and remands for a new trial.
Because the unlawful-purpose conviction was supported by sufficient evidence in the record, the court, following State v. Banko, 182 N.J. 44 (2004), rejects defendant's argument that the unlawful-purpose conviction must be vacated due to the acquittals of the other charges.
In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court addresses defendant's argument regarding his sentence.