Case Title: State v. Porfirio Jimenez

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-75-06

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2007-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 75 September Term 2006 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PORFIRIO JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Argued April 26, 2007 Decided June 18, 2007 On motion for clarification of the opinion of the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported at 188 N.J. 390 (2006). Stephen W. Kirsch, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney; Mr. Kirsch, Joseph E. Krakora, Assistant Public Defender and Susan Remis Silver, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs). John K. McNamara, Jr., Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Michael M. Rubbinaccio, Morris County Prosecutor, attorney). Paul H. Heinzel, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney). PER CURIAM We granted defendant s motion to clarify our opinion in State v. Jimenez, 188 N.J. 390 (2006) (Jimenez II), in which we adopted a framework for adjudicating Atkins See footnote 1 claims. We held that defendant had the burden of proving mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence to the jury at a hearing after the guilt phase and prior to the penalty phase. Jimenez II, supra, 188 N.J. at 408. However, we did not express a view on whether there must be a unanimous jury finding or whether only one juror need reach that conclusion. As a consequence, defendant sought clarification of that issue. Because the finding of mental retardation is like a dispositive mitigating factor, we hold that if a single juror finds defendant has met his burden of proving mental retardation by a preponderance of the evidence, defendant is not eligible to receive a penalty of death. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PORFIRIO JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant. JUSTICE ALBIN, dissenting. I continue to adhere to my dissent in State v. Jimenez, 188 N.J. 390, 410 (2006), in which I concluded that the absence of mental retardation is a fact that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury before a defendant can be executed. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362-63, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 455 (2000), the United States Supreme Court declared that [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 321, 122 S. Ct. 2242, 2252, 153 L. Ed. 2d 335, 350 (2002), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the execution of criminal defendants who are mentally retarded. It follows logically that only the fact of the absence of mental retardation permits the elevation of a sentence of life imprisonment to a death sentence. For that reason, I maintained that it was impermissible under both our Federal and State Constitutions to shift the burden of proof to the defendant, as the majority has done. Jimenez, supra, 188 N.J. at 411 (Albin, J., dissenting). The current formula outlined by the majority for dealing with mental retardation -- allowing for a life sentence if even one juror finds mental retardation -- comes much closer to what I believe is contemplated by our Federal and State Constitutions. See ante at ___ (slip op. at 2). However, because the majority s formulation still does not comply with the dictates of Apprendi and Atkins, I must respectfully dissent. JUSTICE LONG joins in this opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY NO. A-75 SEPTEMBER TERM 2006 ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PORFIRIO JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED June 18, 2007 Chief Justice Zazzali PRESIDING OPINION BY Per Curiam CONCURRING OPINION DISSENTING OPINION BY Justice Albin