## Facts

- Jamal Muhammad was tried for offenses arising from an armed robbery and homicide.
- A key prosecution witness, Stephon Duggan, faced his own criminal exposure and entered a cooperation agreement for a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against Muhammad.
- After reaching that agreement, Duggan gave sworn, tape-recorded statements to police implicating Muhammad and describing the events.
- At trial, the defense attacked Duggan’s credibility, arguing he fabricated his account to obtain leniency and suggesting his trial testimony was a recent invention.
- The trial court admitted Duggan’s recorded prior consistent statement under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2) to rebut the defense claim of fabrication.
- During summation, the prosecutor was permitted to replay limited excerpts of already-admitted videotaped trial testimony.
- The jury convicted Muhammad of unlawful handgun possession, possession for an unlawful purpose, armed robbery, felony murder, knowing/purposeful murder, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery; felony murder was merged into murder.
- Muhammad received a life sentence with a 30-year parole disqualifier, concurrent with other terms.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecutor’s use of limited videotaped trial excerpts during summation improperly allowed witnesses to “testify twice” and denied a fair trial.
2. Whether Duggan’s taped prior consistent statement was inadmissible under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2) because it was made after his cooperation agreement, allegedly failing the premotive/temporal requirement.
3. Whether the failure to give a “mere presence” jury instruction constituted plain error.
4. Whether admitting evidence of another robbery violated N.J.R.E. 404(b) and 403 and whether the limiting instruction was inadequate.
5. Whether the handling of a juror’s expressed fears and communications with other jurors created jury taint requiring further inquiry or removal.
6. Whether cumulative error required reversal.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the trial judge acted within discretion in allowing limited replay of admitted videotaped testimony during summation.
- The court upheld admission of Duggan’s prior consistent statement under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2) as proper rehabilitation responding to the defense claim of recent fabrication.
- The court found no plain error in the absence of a separate “mere presence” instruction given the overall charge.
- The court upheld admission of other-crimes evidence as serving a non-propensity purpose and found the limiting instruction sufficient.
- The court found no reversible jury-taint error and rejected the cumulative-error claim.

## Legal Principles

- Under N.J.R.E. 803(a)(2), a prior consistent statement may be admitted to rebut an express or implied charge that a witness recently fabricated testimony or testified under improper influence or motive.
- The premotive/temporal requirement is applied with reference to the specific fabrication or influence alleged; a prior statement may be admissible when used to rebut a claim that the trial testimony is newly contrived.
- Playing limited excerpts of already-admitted videotaped testimony during summation may be permitted as a form of argument highlighting evidence, subject to trial-court control and fairness constraints.
- Unrequested or unpreserved jury-instruction claims are reviewed for plain error; reversal requires a showing of a clear capacity to produce an unjust result.
- Other-crimes evidence may be admitted for a legitimate non-propensity purpose if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice and the jury is instructed on limited use.
- Claims of jury taint require a record showing of actual prejudice or unreasonable trial management to warrant reversal.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division affirmed Muhammad’s convictions and life sentence, holding that the trial court properly admitted a cooperating witness’s prior consistent statement to rebut a claim of recent fabrication and permissibly allowed controlled video playback of admitted testimony during summation, with no reversible instructional, evidentiary, juror, or cumulative error.


State v. Muhammad, 359 N.J. Super. 361 (App. Div. 2003)