State v. Stubbs

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division · 2013 · Evidence

78 A.3d 987 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2013)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidenceadoptive admissionN.J.R.E. 803(b)(2)N.J.R.E. 104(c)plain errorcurrency seizure reporthearsay exceptionpreliminary hearing

Facts

After a home invasion at defendants' house, police found marijuana, packaging materials, and cash. At the police station, after giving a Mirandized statement denying knowledge of drugs or large amounts of cash, Angelique signed a United States Currency Seizure Report listing $4,831 seized from one of the intruders and identifying her as 'claimant.' The form itself did not clearly state that signing it acknowledged ownership, and Angelique testified she did not recall signing it or being told its significance, while the evidence officer testified only that he routinely told signers their signature would claim the money.

Issue

When the State offers a defendant's signature on a currency seizure form as substantive evidence that she claimed ownership of seized cash, must the trial court first conduct a N.J.R.E. 104(c) hearing to determine whether the signature qualifies as an adoptive admission under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(2)? If no hearing was held, was the error plain and potentially outcome-determinative?

Rule

A signed document offered as an adoptive admission under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(2) is admissible only if the proponent proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the party was aware of and understood the content of the statement allegedly adopted and unambiguously assented to it. When the statement is that of a criminal defendant, N.J.R.E. 803(b) requires the court to determine admissibility in a preliminary N.J.R.E. 104(c) hearing. If the document itself is ambiguous and the State relies on an officer's oral explanation to supply its meaning, the court must assess whether that explanation was actually given, understood, and adopted.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a burglary investigation in Newark, detectives found $6,200 in a duffel bag in a codefendant's car. At the station, they asked Maya Torres, a criminal defendant, to sign a property form listing the cash and identifying her as "claimant," but the form nowhere stated that signing meant she admitted ownership.

If the prosecution wants to offer Maya's signature as substantive proof that she owned the cash, what should the trial court do first?

Explanation. When the State treats a criminal defendant's signature on a document as an adoptive admission under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(2), admissibility must first be determined in a preliminary N.J.R.E. 104(c) hearing. The proponent must show by a preponderance that the defendant was aware of and understood the statement's content and unambiguously assented to it. A vague label like "claimant" does not eliminate the need for that hearing.