11-2-1135 Fiore v. Alibert, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Plaintiff, a home improvement contractor, filed this action to recover sums owing on work he performed for defendant at her home. Finding that defendant’s testimony about defects in the work was not credible, the trial court entered a $3,718 judgment, plus court costs, in favor of plaintiff. Noting that it owed particular deference to the judge’s evaluation of witness credibility, the panel affirmed. It declined to consider defendant’s contentions that plaintiff failed to produce a written contract and that he was not the proper party because the contract was with a corporation because defendant failed to raise those issues below.
14-2-1163 State v. Wright, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (34 pp.) By leave granted, the state appealed from the order granting defendant ‘s petition for post-conviction relief based on the alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the defense of a prosecution for the manufacture and sale of illicit drugs. At trial, the state’s proofs established that defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover federal agent on three separate occasions, two of which occurred in defendant’s apartment. The ineffectiveness claim is predicated upon trial counsel’s failure to call three defense witnesses at retrial—defendant’s mother, sister and childhood friend—to bolster the testimony of the superintendent of defendant’s apartment building. The superintendent testified about the layout, contents and personal use of defendant’s apartment in order to refute the state’s claim that his apartment constituted “a drug production facility.” The appellate panel concluded that trial counsel’s decision not to call the absent witnesses was a reasonable strategic decision. Trial counsel could reasonably have believed that their testimony would have been of marginal value and would have been subject to impeachment on the basis of bias, given the witnesses’ relationship to defendant. In addition, the failure to call the witnesses did not prejudice defendant. Accordingly, the panel reversed the order granting defendant’s petition for PCR.
