## Facts

- Zarik Rose was jailed awaiting trial on charges that he had attempted to murder Charles Mosley.
- While Rose was incarcerated, Mosley was killed.
- The State alleged Rose arranged Mosley’s killing from jail to prevent Mosley—an essential witness—from testifying in the pending attempted-murder case.
- Inmate Larry Graves testified Rose solicited him in jail to kill Mosley; Graves later pled guilty to aggravated manslaughter for Mosley’s killing and testified pursuant to a plea agreement.
- Inmate Salvatore Puglia testified Rose discussed having Mosley “whacked” or otherwise ensuring he would not testify.
- At trial, the State introduced evidence that Rose had been indicted and incarcerated on the attempted-murder charges involving Mosley, including a stipulated copy of that indictment.
- The trial court admitted the evidence as part of the context of the charged murder, alternatively analyzing some testimony under N.J.R.E. 404(b), and gave limiting instructions directing the jury to use the evidence only for permitted purposes.
- Rose was convicted of purposeful murder as an accomplice; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that Rose was indicted and incarcerated on attempted-murder charges involving the same victim was admissible in Rose’s later murder trial.
2. Whether the evidence was intrinsic to the charged murder or subject to N.J.R.E. 404(b), and, in either event, whether it should have been excluded under N.J.R.E. 403 as unfairly prejudicial.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding Rose’s conviction.
- The Court held the evidence of Rose’s prior indictment and incarceration was admissible because it was highly probative of motive, intent, and context for the charged murder.
- The Court concluded the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under N.J.R.E. 403, particularly given the trial court’s limiting instructions.
- The Court held that, even if treated as N.J.R.E. 404(b) evidence, the admission satisfied the Cofield framework and remained admissible for non-propensity purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that reveals a defendant’s prior charges or custody status is admissible when it is closely connected to the charged offense and explains motive and context; such proof may be treated as intrinsic rather than “other-crimes” evidence.
- If analyzed under N.J.R.E. 404(b), other-acts evidence is inadmissible to prove criminal disposition but may be admitted for non-propensity purposes (including motive and intent) if the Cofield criteria are satisfied.
- Under N.J.R.E. 403, relevant evidence may be excluded only when the risk of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; careful limiting instructions are a recognized safeguard against misuse of prior-acts evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that the jury could hear that Rose was indicted and jailed on attempted-murder charges involving Mosley because that evidence explained why Rose would seek to silence Mosley and how the alleged solicitation occurred; any prejudice was adequately controlled through Rule 403 balancing and limiting instructions, and the conviction was affirmed.


State v. Rose, 19 A.3d 985 (N.J. 2011)