Title: New Jersey v. Bell

State: new-jersey

Issuer: New Jersey Supreme Court

Document:

SYLLABUS

This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. 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
Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized.

                         State v. Isaiah Bell (A-58-18) (081743)

Argued September 24, 2019 -- Decided April 14, 2020

SOLOMON, J., writing for the Court.

        The Court considers whether the prosecutor’s failure to instruct the grand jury on
lesser-included offenses for murder in response to questions posed by a grand juror
constituted an abuse of prosecutorial discretion warranting dismissal of defendant’s
indictment for first-degree murder and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.

       Defendant Isaiah Bell was arrested after James Kargbo died from stab wounds
apparently inflicted during an altercation that occurred when defendant and his partner
arrived at Kargbo’s house to pick up her son. A Somerset County prosecutor asked a
grand jury to consider two charges against defendant: murder, a crime of the first degree,
and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. The prosecutor
explained the counts and elements of the offenses. A grand juror twice asked whether
murder had different degrees, and the prosecutor explained that grand jurors do not
determine degrees, only whether the facts presented “fit the elements of the crime.” After
several witnesses testified and answered questions, the same grand juror asked, “is there
such a thing as second-degree murder?” The prosecutor responded by discussing the
grand jury’s responsibilities regarding “lesser included lower offenses,” and the elements
of murder. The grand juror asked, “[T]here’s no part of the . . . statute that speaks to
premeditation?” The prosecutor confirmed that there was not and read the model jury
charge for murder. The grand jury indicted defendant on both counts.

       Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment claiming that, because the grand jury
asked about lesser-included offenses, the prosecutor should have explained the lesser-
included offenses for murder. The court denied the motion, finding that the grand jury
was not requesting instructions on lesser-included offenses, but rather “clarification.”
The Appellate Division denied defendant’s motion for leave to appeal. The Court
granted leave to appeal.  236 N.J. 631 (2019).

HELD: The prosecutor did not impermissibly interfere with the grand jury’s
investigative functions. As the trial court found, the grand jury here sought clarification
rather than specific instructions on lesser-included offenses for murder. The Court
provides guidance as to when such instructions should be given.
                                             1
1. The State moved to dismiss this appeal as moot after defendant was indicted by a
second grand jury for the same crimes. Because this is a matter of general public
importance, the Court considers the motion. (pp. 5-6)

2. The decision to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury
generally rests entirely in the prosecutor’s discretion. A deficiency premised upon
alleged prosecutorial misconduct does not require dismissal of an indictment unless the
prosecutor’s misconduct is extreme and clearly infringes upon the grand jury’s decision-
making function. Where a prosecutor’s instructions to the grand jury were misleading or
an incorrect statement of law, the indictment fails. (pp. 6-9)

3. Instructions on lesser-included offenses began as a way to aid the prosecution so that
it would not fail entirely where some element of the greater offense was not established.
In the context of a petit jury, lesser-included-offense instructions also protect the accused
by avoiding the coercive prejudice inherent in giving the jury the choice of all-or-nothing.
In the grand jury setting, on the other hand, an all-or-nothing choice jeopardizes the
prosecution: If the prosecutor does not explain lesser-included offenses to the grand
jurors and probable cause is not found for the offense presented, the grand jury will return
a no bill. If evidence of lesser-included offenses, though not clearly exculpatory, exists
but is not presented to the grand jury, or if the evidence is presented but the grand jury is
not instructed on lesser-included offenses, the trial court must nonetheless instruct the
petit jury on lesser-included offenses at the close of trial. (pp. 9-12)

4. Courts in other jurisdictions have generally found no affirmative duty to instruct grand
juries on lesser-included offenses but have been nearly uniform in ruling that prosecutors
may not mislead grand jurors if they pose questions about lesser-included offenses.
Applying the principles from the treatment of lesser-included offenses before petit juries,
the Court agrees that the constitutional protections afforded defendants by the grand jury
process are not undermined by the failure to charge lesser-included offenses. (pp. 12-14)

5. The trial court here did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to
dismiss the indictment. The facts revealed an altercation while defendant and his partner
picked up her child from the victim. In that altercation, defendant allegedly stabbed the
victim. In that context, it is reasonable that a grand juror would seek clarification about
“degrees” for murder, and specifically about premeditation. In response, the prosecutor
mentioned “lesser included lower offenses,” the grand jury’s responsibility, and the
model jury charge for murder. The prosecutor made no misstatements or misleading
representations. No subversion of the grand jury process occurred. The prosecutor
dutifully, honestly, and in good faith answered the grand juror’s questions. That the
prosecutor did not instruct the grand jury on lesser-included offenses for murder does not
constitute an abuse of the prosecutor’s broad discretion warranting dismissal of the
indictment. In any event, the trial court may be obliged to instruct the petit jury on
lesser-included offenses at the close of trial. (pp. 14-16)
                                             2
6. Although no instruction as to lesser-included offenses was needed in this case, the
Court notes that other cases may call for such instructions. When the grand jurors’
questions, considered in context, ask about lesser-included offenses and there is a rational
basis for instructions on lesser-included offenses, the better practice for prosecutors is to
provide them and advise the grand jury that the trial court may include instructions on
lesser-included offenses whether or not the grand jury authorizes them. That will ensure
that grand jurors are fully informed of the consequences of their decisions. (pp. 16-17)

       The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON,
FERNANDEZ-VINA, and TIMPONE join in JUSTICE SOLOMON’S opinion.

                                             3
                    SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                          A-
58 September Term 2018
                                    081743

                              State of New Jersey,

                             Plaintiff-Respondent,

                                       v.

                                  Isaiah Bell,

                             Defendant-Appellant.

                      On appeal from the Superior Court,
                             Appellate Division.

                   Argued                          Decided
              September 24, 2019                 April 14, 2020

            Isaac Wright, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (Hunt,
            Hamlin & Ridley, attorneys; Isaac Wright, Jr., on the
            briefs).

            Paul H. Heinzel, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the
            cause for respondent (Michael H. Robertson, Somerset
            County Prosecutor, attorney; Paul H. Heinzel, of
            counsel and on the briefs).

           JUSTICE SOLOMON delivered the opinion of the Court.

      We granted defendant Isaiah Bell’s motion for leave to appeal to this

Court to consider whether the prosecutor’s failure to instruct the grand jury on

lesser-included offenses for murder in response to questions posed by a grand
                                       1
juror constituted an abuse of prosecutorial discretion warranting dismissal of

defendant’s indictment for first-degree murder and possession of a weapon for

an unlawful purpose. We determine that the prosecutor did not impermissibly

interfere with the grand jury’s investigative functions. We agree with the trial

judge that the grand jury here sought clarification rather than specific

instructions on lesser-included offenses for murder, and we therefore affirm

the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion and request for

reconsideration.

      We nevertheless note that, where there is a rational basis for providing

instructions on lesser-included offenses in response to grand jurors’ questions

considered in context, prosecutors should instruct the grand jury on lesser-

included offenses and advise the grand jury that trial courts may incorporate

lesser-included offenses whether or not the grand jury charges them.

                                        I.

      The grand jury record below reveals that James Kargbo and defendant’s

partner, Shanique Coleman, had a child together. Defendant drove with

Coleman to Kargbo’s house to pick up her son. Kargbo saw them approach,

put his son in his car, and blocked defendant’s car from moving. Defendant

and Kargbo exited their vehicles, got into a physical altercation, reentered their

cars, and drove away. Kargbo’s car crashed, and he was found lying outside

                                        2
the vehicle covered in blood. Kargbo was transported to a hospital, where he

was pronounced dead from stab wounds apparently inflicted during his

altercation with defendant. Officers arrested defendant and charged him with

murder and weapons offenses.

      A Somerset County prosecutor asked a grand jury to consider two

charges against defendant: murder,  N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2) and (b)(1),

a crime of the first degree, and third-degree possession of a weapon for an

unlawful purpose,  N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d). At the start of the grand jury

proceedings, the prosecutor explained the counts and elements of the offenses.

      Before the prosecutor called the investigating detective to testify, a

grand juror requested that the statute for first-degree murder be read and asked

whether there were “different degrees.” The prosecutor responded, “I don’t

discuss degree with you because degree affects punishment. You don’t

determine degree, but you do determine whether the facts that you hear fit the

elements of the crime.” Later, in response to another question by the same

grand juror, the prosecutor explained, “What’s being presented is this

particular statute. The degree is not an element for you. I can’t give you a

definition of the degree. The degree is set by the Legislature and it’s not an

element of the offense. You heard the elements of this offense.”

                                        3
      After several witnesses testified and answered questions, the same grand

juror asked, “is there such a thing as second-degree murder?” The prosecutor

responded by discussing the grand jury’s responsibilities regarding “lesser

included lower offenses,” and the elements of murder.

            Prosecutor: There are lesser included lower offenses
            for an individual’s act of causing the death of another.
            In order to do that, you would have to find that there is
            insufficient evidence of a prima facie case that Isaiah
            Bell committed the act of murder as I have read it to
            you. . . .

            If you think that there is insufficient evidence of a
            prima facie case that he purposely or knowingly caused
            death or serious bodily injury resulting in death, I can
            read to you other statutes that are going to cover the
            actor’s act, if you will, of causing death by another but
            it’s going to have a lower culpability and a reckless
            culpability.

            Juror: So just to be clear, there’s no -- there’s no part
            of the definition in the New Jersey statute that speaks
            to premeditation?

            Prosecutor: No, and so let me read to you that in the
            model jury charge for murder. Now, model jury charge
            is what the petit jury gets if they sit in a murder case or
            any case. They’re model jury charges for the offense
            that are linked here and the statute which is what you
            hear. But there is a segment that specifically deals with
            that and I will find it and read it . . . .

The prosecutor concluded by reading the model jury charge for murder, after

which the grand jury indicted defendant for first-degree murder and third-degree

possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.
                                        4
      Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment claiming that, because the

grand jury asked about lesser-included offenses, the prosecutor should have

explained the lesser-included offenses for murder.1 The court denied

defendant’s motion and subsequent request for reconsideration, finding that the

grand jury was not requesting instructions on lesser-included offenses, but

rather “clarification.” The Appellate Division denied defendant’s motion for

leave to appeal. Defendant then filed a motion for leave to appeal with this

Court arguing that, because the grand jury requested an instruction on

“degrees,” the prosecutor should have instructed the grand jury on the lesser-

included offenses for murder. We granted defendant’s motion for leave to

appeal.  236 N.J. 631 (2019).

      The State moved to dismiss this appeal as moot after defendant was

indicted by a second grand jury for the same crimes. Nevertheless, because

this is a matter of general public importance, we elect to consider the motion.

See In re Commitment of N.N.,  146 N.J. 112, 124 (1996) (“[A] decision by

this Court is necessary though the case . . . is moot. The issues posed by this

case involve significant matters of public policy, are extremely important, and

1
  Though not relevant to this motion, defendant also argued before the trial
court that the grand jury was persuaded by false statements made by the
prosecutor.

                                        5
undoubtedly will recur in cases that are likely to be mooted before

adjudication.”).

                                       II.

      We begin with an overview of the grand jury process and the deferential

standard of review applied to indictments returned by a grand jury.

                                       A.

      The grand jury functions “as both a sword and shield” of our criminal

justice system. State v. Shaw, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op. at 10).

Article I, Paragraph 8 of the New Jersey Constitution provides in relevant part

that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the

presentment or indictment of a grand jury.” Thus, the grand jury “occupie[s] a

high place as an instrument of justice in our system of criminal law.” State v.

Murphy,  110 N.J. 20, 36 (1988).

      Grand juries “stand[] between citizens and the State,” and are tasked

with “assess[ing] whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal

charge.” State v. Saavedra,  222 N.J. 39, 56 (2015) (quoting State v. Hogan,

 144 N.J. 216, 227, 229-30 (1996)). They serve the “dual function of

determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been

committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded criminal

prosecutions.” State v. Del Fino,  100 N.J. 154, 165 (1985) (quoting Branzburg

                                        6
v. Hayes,