State of New Jersey v. Fuquan K. Knight
Docket No. A-37/38-23
Decided December 18, 2024
Submitted by New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark
In a recently published opinion, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided defendants Fuquan K. Knight and Shaquan K. Knight’s challenges to the trial court’s determination to permit the jury to replay surveillance video evidence in slow motion and with intermittent pauses during deliberations.
In October 2018, three men robbed a victim behind a deli. The victim identified defendants, Fuquan Knight and Shaquan Knight, as two of the robbers. At their trial, defendants disputed the identification and their involvement in the robbery. The State showed surveillance video taken from the deli approximately six seconds in length that showed four men walking outside past the partially obscured window in the deli’s back door for about two seconds. The State played the video as part of its case-in-chief and again several times in closing, once in slow motion.
When the jury was about to start deliberations, the jury requested that the video be replayed several more times in slow motion, at other varying speeds, and with intermittent pauses. Defendants objected. However, over defendants’ objections, the trial judge permitted those playbacks under her supervision in the courtroom. Eventually, the jury found both defendants guilty of armed robbery and other offenses. Defendants appealed.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that subject to exclusion under N.J.R.E. 403, relevant “surveillance video evidence may be presented during a trial or closing argument . . . in slow motion or at other varying speeds, or with intermittent pauses, if the trial court reasonably finds [it] would assist the jurors’ understanding of the pertinent events and help them resolve disputed factual issues. ” The Appellate Division further found that “trial courts have the discretion to grant a jury’s requests during deliberations to replay surveillance videos in such modes one or more times, provided that the playbacks occur in open court under the judge’s supervision and in the presence of counsel.”
In exercising their discretion in admitting into evidence or allowing the replay of surveillance video, the Appellate Division determined, trial courts should consider, among other things: (a) whether the video has a soundtrack that contains recorded statements of the filmed persons; (b) whether the video is difficult to discern when played only at normal speed; (c) whether the video can assist in resolving disputed issues of identification; (d) whether the video bears upon disputed issues of intentionality; and (e) whether the video contains content that is particularly disturbing or inflammatory to watch repeatedly in slow motion. The Appellate Division recommended that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider a model charge to address jury requests to replay surveillance video evidence and to caution jurors to afford such evidence only appropriate and not undue weight in comparison with the other evidence at trial. The Supreme Court of New Jersey then granted certification.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision substantially for the reasons expressed in the Appellate Judge’s opinion. The Court agreed with the Appellate Division’s guidance and list of non-exclusive factors for trial courts to consider in exercising their discretion, although the Court noted that the concerns raised in the study about intentionality cited by defendants would need to be tested under the standard articulated in State v. Olenowski, 253 N.J. 133 (2023). The Court also agreed with the recommendation that the Model Criminal Jury Charge Committee consider a model charge regarding jury requests to replay video evidence. The Court offered additional comments on why watching a video in slow motion is not beyond the ken of an average juror, and why playing the difficult-to-perceive recording here in slow motion to assist the jury was not an alteration or distortion of the video.
Cellphone footage, body worn camera footage, Ring doorbell footage and surveillance footage are almost always the best evidence in any given civil and criminal case. With this ruling, a jury will have almost unfettered access to viewing the footage however they would like in the presence of the judge for them to grasp its content and make an informed decision.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendants in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.