newjerseynewsroom.com

16-year-old was convicted of break-in at Woodbury convenience store

BY JOE TYRRELL

NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM

A Gloucester County youth, convicted of a break-in on the basis of a fingerprint, has lost his appeal that the evidence was insufficient without other support.

A two-judge appellate court upheld the June 2008 conviction in Family Court of the 16-year-old boy, identified only as SR because of his age.

But appellate Judges William P. Gilroy and Marie P. Simonelli found the trial judge failed to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors in her sentence of SR, and ordered a new sentencing.

The case began with a 4 a.m. break-in at a Woodbury convenience store. At the time, the store manager was counting the previous day's receipts in a back office.

The store's video cameras recorded figures throwing a cement block through the store window and entering, but the image was not good enough to identify them. According to authorities, the manager did hear but not see the break-in, and also did not see the burglars steal the money.

Woodbury police found three fingerprints on a countertop in the manager's office. The Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office matched the fingerprints to SR. At trial, Detective Brian Perticari of the prosecutor's office testified he had sent them to a State Police system, which also found points of similarity on the one it was able to process.

Since that was the only evidence against SR, his attorney appealed on the basis that the State Police finding have been presented in testimony, subject to cross-examination, instead of admitted into evidence as a report.

The defense noted police did not find SR with any proceeds from the break-in, or even clothes matching those worn by the persons on the surveillance video.

While Gilroy and Simonelli agreed on that testimony was the proper procedure, but concluded this was a harmless error. They noted the defense had agreed to the admission of a computer printout supporting the fingerprint report, and to the inclusion of SR's print in the State Police test.

Perticari testified about his own fingerprint findings, and was cross-examined, the judges said. Contrary to the defense assertions, "Perticari did not 'rubber stamp'" the State Police findings, according to the opinion.

While Woodbury police could have been more specific about where the fingerprints were found, they came from a part of the store closes to the general public, according to the judges.

But they did take issue with the sentence. Although the trial judge imposed three years probation instead of a prison term, she added requirements that SR make restitution, complete high school, follow a curfew and perform 180 hours of community service.

Joe Tyrrell may be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it