NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5253-17T4
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BRONK H. MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted May 28, 2020 – Decided July 22, 2020
Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, Indictment No. 16-07-1947.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Laura B. Lasota, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Jill S. Mayer, Acting Camden County Prosecutor,
attorney for respondent (Jason Magid, Special Deputy
Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of
counsel and on the brief).
Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Bronk H. Miller was convicted by a jury of a lesser-included
offense, second-degree reckless manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1), but
acquitted of second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-
5(b), and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose,
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a).1 On June 27, 2018, the judge sentenced defendant to ten
years imprisonment, subject to the No Early Release Act's eighty-five percent
parole ineligibility. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. The sentence was to be served
consecutive to one defendant was already serving. For the reasons that follow,
we remand for a hearing forthwith to clarify certain portions of the record. We
do not retain jurisdiction.
Key to the State's presentation was surveillance footage from cameras
recording at two different bars, as well as the street. A Camden County
Prosecutor's Office Homicide Unit detective narrated that surveillance footage
over two days. The detective identified defendant as the man wearing "an
Adidas outfit." The detective testified that the man at times displayed a silver
and black handgun, and at one point, confronted the victim outside a bar,
1
The prosecutor dismissed post-trial the indictment's severed fourth count—
certain persons not to possess, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b).
A-5253-17T4
2
displaying a gun. The disc we were provided depicting that exterior shot is
blocked by a setup menu consisting of large white letters. These letters obscure
that part of the screen the detective identified as depicting the confrontation as
well as defendant's possession of the gun.
We inquired whether the discs we were supplied were the discs shown to
the jury, and were informed that indeed it was the same. Because during the
trial there is no discussion of the fact that the detective's description of the action
cannot be independently seen behind the setup menu letters, it is necessary for
us to send this matter back for a further hearing to clarify the point. 2 It is
possible, but requires confirmation, that the jury saw the same taped sequence
provided to us.
Defendant argues that the detective's narrative, including his alleged
possession of a gun and confrontation with defendant, constituted inadmissible
lay opinion testimony. He claims the detective's explanation of the videos
improperly invaded the jury’s role as the fact-finder and filled in the voids in
the State's case. This is the principal argument being made on appeal.
2
Curiously, neither party addresses the setup menu in their arguments before
this court.
A-5253-17T4
3
It is well-established that we review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for
abuse of discretion. Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 N.J. 6, 12 (2008). But without an
accurate record of the proofs, we cannot address that legal determination.
If the obscured video footage we have in our possession is the same as
that shown to the jury, defendant has the right to make a motion for a new trial
or for such other relief as he may deem appropriate within thirty days of the
hearing to settle the record. Should a further appeal be necessary, the decision
can be included in any new notice of appeal.
Remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-5253-17T4
4