Story by Ethan
On January 22nd, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division denied Alexandre Saunders his motion for a new trial was announced by the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division. Alexandre Saunders was initially charged with third-degree Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2), third-degree Possession of a Weapon for an Unlawful Purpose N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 4(d), third-degree Unlawful Possession of a Weapon N.J.S.A. 2C:39- 5(d), and third-degree Aggravated Assault Causing Significant Bodily Injury N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(7).
According to the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, following the initial indictment against the defendant in July 2021, Alexandre Saunders was found guilty of third-degree Aggravated Assault Causing Significant Bodily Injury N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(7) by a grand jury in May 2022. The defendant filed a JNOV motion six months later under the precedent of new evidence, however this motion was denied and Alexandre Saunders was sentenced to one year of non-custodial probation. The defendant had then raised points of contention against the court claiming his appeal should be granted because the court made errors by denying his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative a new trial, denying his motion for judgement notwithstanding the verdict of guilty, denying his motion for a new trial, and denying his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Alexander Saunders claimed that the court’s denial of his motion was an error because the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent and presented evidence was insufficient in proving his guilt for the aggravated assault charge. The jury acquitted Anexandre Saunders of the weapons offenses and only found him guilty of the aggravated assault through reasonable deductions that evidence requirements to prove one charge aren’t mutually exclusive to meeting the requirements of proving another charge. As explained in State v. Muhammad, 182 N.J., 551 577, (2005) juries are able to, “accept all… a portion… or none of a witness’s testimony,”. It was determined that the substantial amount of evidence presented during the trial proves the jury’s verdict was consistent unlike Alexandre Saunders claimed.
The defendant pursued contention about the court abusing its discretion by denying his motion for a new trial based on the reasoning of newly discovered evidence warranting another trial. However, according to statute from State v. Fortin, 464 N.J. Super. 193, 216 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981)), a new trial is only granted if the new evidence is, “(1) material to the issue and not merely cumulative or impeaching or contradictory; (2) discovered since the trial and not discoverable by reasonable diligence beforehand; and (3) of the sort that would probably change the jury’s verdict if a new trial were granted,”. Alexandre Saunders had also argued that he was erred because the judge that decided the motion was not the same judge that presided over the jury trial. While it is agreed upon that the best resolution would be keeping the same judge to preside both the trial and the motion, the motion judge reviewed all parties’ submissions and all arguments presented at the trial therefore the difference in judges presented no error. The motion judge was determined to establish the proper legal standards when reviewing the motion for a new trial, in addition to determining that a statement given by the defendant’s sister was suspect and “it’s discovery [was] problematic,”. It was concluded by the motion judge that the sister’s statements were obtainable during discovery before the trial. Alexandre Saunders argued that his sister, “chose not to speak to the police that day,” because she, “was afraid and embarrassed,”. The defendant’s claim that he was unaware of this potential evidence is contradicted by the records. Due to this reasoning the court determined that the motion judge did not abuse his discretion by determining the allegedly new evidence was in fact available prior to the trial, therefore the defendant’s motion for a new trial being denied is not an error.
