Case Title: New Jersey v. Bailey

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-96-15

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
SYLLABUS

(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the
convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the
interest of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized.)

                                   State v. Karlton L. Bailey (A-96-15) (077141)

Argued September 12, 2017 -- Decided January 22, 2018

TIMPONE, J., writing for the Court.

        The Court considers the propriety of defendant’s conviction under the Certain Persons Not to Have
Weapons Statute, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7, when the redacted evidence prevented the jury from confirming that
defendant’s prior conviction was indeed an enumerated offense under the statute.

         Carlos Guerrero and Alex Mejia were walking in New Brunswick after a night of drinking. A video
surveillance camera captured defendant Karlton Bailey approaching Guerrero from behind and putting his hand in
Guerrero’s back pocket. Mejia responded by running across the street to confront defendant. The conflict quickly
turned violent. Upon seeing defendant draw a gun, Mejia held his hands up in the air and backed away. Defendant
followed Mejia into the street, struck him in the face, searched his pockets, and fled the scene.

         A Middlesex County Grand Jury returned an indictment (Indictment 1650) against defendant, charging him
with second-degree possession of a firearm by certain persons not to possess a firearm, 
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b). A
second indictment (Indictment 1317) charged defendant with robbery, assault, and weapons offenses.

          In February 2013, a jury found defendant guilty on all counts of Indictment 1317. A separate jury trial on
the certain persons indictment immediately followed. At that trial, defendant did not stipulate to the predicate
convictions that prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The parties agreed that evidence of defendant’s prior
convictions would be sanitized, that is, “redacted except for the date and the degree of the offense.” The trial court
properly advised the jury that they “must disregard [their] prior verdict, and consider anew the evidence previously
admitted on possession of a weapon.”

         The State produced testimony from Investigator David Carmen, who identified two separate judgments of
conviction. The predicate offenses were a 1994 conviction for third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous
substance with the intent to distribute and a 2006 conviction for third-degree aggravated assault. The trial court,
relying on State v. Brown, 
180 N.J. 572, 585 (2004), and footnote five of the model jury charge for certain persons
offenses, determined that the judgments of conviction needed to be redacted so as to include only the date and
degree of each offense.

         The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of the certain persons offense. The judge explained that
to convict defendant, the jury must find that defendant possessed a firearm and that “defendant is the person who . . .
previously has been convicted of third-degree crimes.” The trial court further advised the jury that it could use the
evidence of defendant’s prior crimes only for the limited purpose of establishing the prior-conviction element of the
certain persons offense, not to decide that defendant has a propensity to commit crime. The jury convicted
defendant of the certain persons charge.

         Defendant appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed. The panel found the procedure used and the trial
court’s charge, based upon the model jury charge, disquieting. The panel questioned the continuing use of the
model charge, but nonetheless determined that any error was invited. The panel concluded that no injustice occurred
as the State was ready and able to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior convictions but redacted them on defense
counsel’s request. The Court granted defendant’s petition for certification. 
227 N.J. 144 (2016).

HELD: Because the State never proved an essential element of the certain persons charge to the jury, defendant’s
conviction cannot stand.

                                                           1
1. In a criminal prosecution in which the accused has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, each element of the crime
must be decided by the jury. Because 
N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7(b)(1) requires proof of a specific prior conviction, a certain
persons charge entails a risk of prejudice to a defendant in a jury trial. In State v. Ragland, the Court held that when a
defendant is charged with an additional crime beyond the certain persons offense, the trial must be bifurcated. 
105 N.J. 189, 193 (1986). A bifurcated proceeding is necessary “since proof that defendant was a convicted felon (required in
the trial of the [certain persons] charge) clearly tends to prejudice the jury in considering the [additional charge].” Ibid.
Critically, “the defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence and, as a consequence of that, to an instruction that
each and every material fact that makes up the crime . . . must be proven . . . beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 195. In
Old Chief v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that when a defendant stipulates to a predicate
conviction, “[t]he most the jury needs to know is that the conviction . . . falls within the class of crimes that Congress
thought should bar a convict from possessing a gun.”