Supreme Court Sides With Ocean County Prosecutor in Lakewood Drug Case

Ocean County prosecutors were handed a victory by the New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday when justices reversed a decision made by a lower court which prevented prosecutors from introduce evidence at a trial consisting of communications between a husband and wife proving involvement in a crime.

The case in question was a Lakewood drug distribution case for which an indictment was secured in 2013 against a man, Teron Savoy – the accused drug kingpin – and his wife, Yolanda Terry.

Investigators intercepted phone communications between Savoy and Terry, "in furtherance of their drug trafficking crimes," said Al Della Fave, spokesman for the prosecutor's office.

The defendants' attorneys attempted to exclude the phone conversations from their trial claiming that they fell within New Jersey’s marital communication privilege which generally excludes from court communications made between spouses.

The trial judge ruled the evidence admissible, however, stating that since the communications were made in furtherance of crimes, they were “not worthy of protection.”

The Superior Court Appellate Division disagreed, however, ruling that even when conversations between and spouses are in the midst of criminal activity, they are protected.

The high court on Monday referred a proposal to the state legislature with its decision an exception to the protection law when criminal activity is involved in spousal communications. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner urged the legislature to formalize the exception by statute and wrote that New Jersey should take on the same policy as federal courts, which except conversations furthering criminal activity from protection.

The court accepted the prosecutor’s contention that a so-called "crime fraud exception" should be adopted in New Jersey. Further, the justices ruled that should the legislature adopt the court's language before the Savoy-Terry trial begins, the communications between the pair would fall under the exception and the phone evidence can be presented at trial.

"The marital communications privilege suppresses relevant evidence so as to protect the tranquility of a marriage, but where evidence of crimes is withheld from a jury, there is an obvious detriment to the public," said Prosecutor Joseph Coronato, in a statement. "The Supreme Court should decide whether the privilege applied in this case, and if so, whether a crime or fraud exception to the privilege would better serve the public’s welfare."