Source: http://njcriminallaw.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 01:50:22
Document Index: 112448788

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 18', '§ 811', '§ 346', 'art. 5', '§ 28', '§ 54', '§ 2']

Criminal Law- Recent Cases NJ Kenneth Vercammen Law Office. 732-572-0500 Edison, NJ: January 2011
State v. Daniel Twian Brown (A-67-09/A-17-10)
Labels: State v. Daniel Twian Brown (A-67-09/A-17-10)
State v. Damu Alston (A-72-09)1-19-11
Defendant’s statements after he waived his right to counsel, when clarified, were not an assertion of his right to counsel, and the police officer’s questions did not exceed the scope of permissible clarification.
Labels: State v. Damu Alston (A-72-09)1-19-11
State v. Eileen M. Ciancaglini (A-92/93-09)
Defendant Ciancaglini’s conviction in 2006 for refusing to take a breathalyzer test does not constitute a prior conviction for purposes of determining her sentence for driving while intoxicated in 2008.
Labels: State v. Eileen M. Ciancaglini (A-92/93-09)
Resisting Arrest 2c 29 2
Intoxication as Defense to Criminal charge 2c-2-8.mov
Eluding2c-29-2b.mov
Breath Test Warnings Now Must Be Given in Spanish. State v. Marquez 202...
DL Suspension on Traffic Ticket Requires Willful Violation. State v. Mo...
Police Could Not Lift Up Shirt for Terry Frisk. State v. Privott 203 NJ...
Protective Sweep After Gunshot Sometimes Permitted on Private Property ...
Abandoned Bag Permits Search. State v. Carvajal 202 NJ 214 (2010) .mov
Posted by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison at 4:39 PM
Officer Must Read Additional Warnings State v Schmidt 414 NJ Super ...
Max 180 Days Jail in a Municipal Court Case State v Federico 414 NJ ...
Posted by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison at 12:59 PM
No Warrantless Search based on smell of weed State v Pompa
Posted by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison at 7:53 PM
No Statement Admissible by Non-Appearing Witness. State v. Basil 202 N...
Investigatory Stop Permitted where Articulable Suspicion of Drugs State...
Conviction upheld even though intoxication defense not brought before jury STATE BAUMAN298 N.J. Super. 176. (1997)
Before Judges Michels, Kleiner, and Coburn.
New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County.
Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Mark S. Carter, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).
Jeffrey S. Blitz, Atlantic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (James F. Smith, Assistant County Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
It is not necessary to describe each of the many crimes that defendant committed. A short review of the sequence of events will suffice. Defendant, a New York resident, stole a 1984 Volvo
with New York license plates, from an auto body repair shop on Long Island, New York. Defendant drove to the Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City and parked in its parking garage. Defendant proceeded to the casino floor and gambled at the blackjack tables. At one point, defendant was winning approximately $4,000. Defendant continued to gamble and thereafter lost the entire $4,000 and any remaining money that he had brought with him from New York.
Among the many items that defendant stole were two registered handguns and two registered rifles removed from two different vehicles. From the proof it is clear that defendant possessed these weapons when he thereafter entered other parked motor vehicles. Additionally, defendant took a suitcase in which
he found Valium, which had been prescribed for the owner of the suitcase.
The next morning, October 8, 1992, Officer Jones witnessed defendant acting strangely. As a result, defendant's description was reported to the Atlantic City Police Department.See footnote 1 Defendant took New Jersey license plates off of an automobile parked at a nearby casino training school and placed those plates on the Volvo. He then proceeded to depart Atlantic City.
Shortly before noon on October 8, 1992, Officers Harold Cooper and Thomas McGowan were on bicycle patrol at the intersection of Arkansas and Atlantic Avenues, about one-and-a-half blocks from the Trump Plaza, when they received a radio transmission to be on the lookout for a white Volvo with New York license plates loaded with stolen property. The officers spotted a Volvo traveling from the direction of the Trump Plaza. The officers pedalled up to the Volvo, which was stopped in traffic, and ordered defendant to pull his vehicle over. Defendant, who appeared very calm, looked at the officers and drove away at a
high rate of speed. The officers broadcasted a description of the vehicle and its direction of travel--towards the Atlantic City Expressway--over the radio.
Detective Hurley, then traveling on the expressway, heard Cohen's alert. Hurley looked in his rear view mirror and saw the Volvo traveling on the shoulder of the road at about forty miles per hour. Hurley attempted to change lanes in order to avoid the oncoming Volvo, as the shoulder of the road was becoming narrower. Hurley's car stalled and was struck in the rear by defendant's vehicle, rendering Hurley unconscious and causing other disabling injuries. Meanwhile, Cohen, who was still in pursuit, observed defendant exit his vehicle wearing black pants, a white shirt, work gloves, and a bandanna. Cohen watched defendant run across the expressway and enter an adjacent marshy
area filled with tall weeds and a creek. Cohen lost sight of defendant and called for backup assistance and the canine patrol.
This series of events was the focus of the initial indictment by the Atlantic County Grand Jury.See footnote 2
After failing to reach a plea bargain agreement, the prosecutor obtained a superseding indictment, No. 93-11-2816-A, which charged defendant as follows: third-degree theft by receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7, (count one); second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1), (count two); first-degree robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1, (count three); third-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(2), (count four); fourth-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(3), (count five); third-degree aggravated assault of a police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(5)(a), (counts six, eight, and nine); third-degree aggravated assault while eluding a police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(7), (count seven); fourth-degree eluding a
police officer, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b (count ten); fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(1), (counts eleven and twelve); fourth-degree resisting arrest, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a(2), (count thirteen); third-degree burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, (counts fourteen, sixteen, eighteen, and twenty); fourth-degree theft of moveable property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a, (count fifteen); third-degree theft of moveable property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-3a, (counts seventeen, nineteen, twenty-one, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-seven, and twenty-eight); second-degree armed burglary, N.J.S.A. 2C:18-2, (counts twenty-two and twenty-six); fourth-degree credit card theft, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-6c(1), (counts twenty-nine and thirty); third-degree unlawful possession of a rifle, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5c(1) (counts thirty-one and thirty-two); third-degree possession of a handgun without a permit,N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (counts thirty-three and thirty-four); third-degree escape, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5a, (count thirty-five), and second-degree possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b, (counts thirty-six, thirty-seven, thirty-eight, and thirty-nine).
Prior to trial, defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the superseding indictment and to reinstate the original indictment. Defendant contended that the superseding indictment was obtained because of prosecutorial vindictiveness arising from defendant's refusal to accept the prosecutor's plea offer. Prosecutorial vindictiveness, discussed in Part III, is a concept
that has received limited attention in prior opinions of this court.
Also before trial, the State moved to dismiss counts three, sixteen, and seventeen of the superseding indictment and obtained an order of severance on counts thirty-six through thirty-nine.See footnote 3
Following his discharge in May 1984, defendant earned an associates degree in business administration, a bachelor's degree in human behavior, and started earning credits towards a Masters
Degree in social work. During this period, defendant was employed in a variety of positions. Defendant was, for a while, an admitting clerk and patient representative at St. Claire's Hospital; he later worked at Montefiore Medical Center as assistant director of patient relations. In December 1990, defendant began employment with the New York Board of Education as a substance abuse prevention specialist, counseling students who were at risk of becoming involved with drugs. While working for the Board of Education, defendant also taught behavioral courses as an adjunct professor for Mercy College.
Defendant informed his supervisor at the Board of Education that he had an addiction problem and requested a thirty-day leave of absence in order to enter a residential treatment program. Defendant's request was denied and he was asked to resign.
Although he tried to gain admission to a detoxification program, defendant's name was placed on a waiting list.
Defendant further testified that while playing blackjack on the evening of his arrival in Atlantic City, he was hearing imaginary voices. He slept that night in his automobile. When he awoke, he began to experience visual and auditory hallucinations, which he had not experienced since 1984. He claimed that he saw silhouettes of imaginary people sitting in vehicles that were parked in the Trump Plaza garage. These individuals mocked him and told him that he was a failure. Consequently, defendant exited the Volvo and approached the vehicles in which these imaginary individuals were seated in order to confront his tormentors. Defendant claimed that he asked these imaginary persons to leave him alone and that they
laughed at him and made derogatory remarks. In response, defendant entered the vehicles and took "trophies" as a way of stopping the hallucinations. Defendant acknowledged that he entered some of the vehicles by breaking the windows with a gloved fist. Other cars that he entered were unlocked. Defendant placed the items that he obtained from these vehicles into the Volvo. Defendant then proceeded to the Taj Mahal where he also entered automobiles and removed property found in those vehicles. He carried the items in two suitcases to the Trump Plaza parking garage. Defendant denied that he took the items for monetary reasons.
Erskine opined that defendant was psychotic due to his schizoaffective disorder, delusional, in a manic episode, and not thinking in a straightforward manner at the time he broke into the vehicles. Although defendant's cognitive capacity was fairly intact and he had the ability to perform purposeful, goal-directed activities and to understand the nature and quality of his acts, defendant was unable at the time to understand that what he was doing was wrong. Defendant's ability to determine right from wrong was diminished. Defendant's reasoning and knowing capacities were not impaired, but his judgmental capacity
was very impaired. He acted impulsively in order to obtain items that he could fence in exchange for money for gambling. Erskine also opined that defendant was in a psychotic state when he was being chased by the police as evidenced by his auditory hallucinations. He did, however, act in a purposeful and knowing manner at that time.
In rebuttal, the State presented the expert testimony of Dr. Daniel Greenfield, who is board certified in psychiatry and addiction medicine. Greenfield concluded that although defendant had a chronic schizoaffective disorder, it was in remission at the time of the instant crimes. He explained that people suffering from schizoaffective disorder can distinguish right from wrong. In his opinion, defendant was sane at the time that he committed the criminal acts since he knew the nature and quality of his acts and was able to distinguish right from wrong.
Defendant's conduct consisted of complex, goal-directed, knowing and purposeful acts that required memory of the recent past, awareness of the present, and an ability to anticipate future consequences and events. Defendant fled from the police because he knew he was in trouble and knew that what he had done was wrong. Any delusions or auditory and visual hallucinations that defendant may have experienced as a result of his schizoaffective disorder were not powerful enough to have overcome his knowing, purposeful and goal-directed behavior.
Thereafter, defendant was sentenced. After merging defendant's conviction on count five into his conviction on count seven, the judge granted the State's motion for an extended term on count seven since defendant was a persistent offender. The court imposed a nine-year prison term with a four-year parole ineligibility period on count seven; a consecutive five-year term, with a two-year parole ineligibility period on count nine; and a consecutive nine-year term, with a four-year parole ineligibility period on count twenty-two. Concurrent eighteen-month terms were imposed on counts ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fifteen, twenty-nine, and thirty. A concurrent nine-year term,
with a four-year parole ineligibility period was imposed on count twenty-six. Concurrent five-year terms were imposed on counts one, fourteen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-three, thirty-four and thirty-five. Thus, defendant's aggregate sentence is a twenty-three year prison term with a ten-year period of parole ineligibility. In addition, defendant was fined $1,450 for the Violent Crimes Compensation Board.
THE PROSECUTOR'S CONDUCT DENIED DEFENDANT OF FAIR AND FUNDAMENTAL TREATMENT BY IMPROPER PROSECUTORIAL COMMENTS MADE DURING SUMMATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONSee footnote 4
Since defense counsel did not request a charge on intoxication or diminished capacity and did not object to their omission from the jury instructions, defendant can only prevail
if he demonstrates plain error, i.e., error "clearly capable of producing an unjust result." R. 2:10-2. After a thorough review of the record, we are satisfied that defendant's contentions are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add the following comments.
"The defense of intoxication is divided between 'voluntary' and 'involuntary' intoxication," State v. Sette, 259 N.J. Super. 156, 170 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 130 N.J. 597 (1992), and may be attributed to drugs or alcohol. State v. Zola, 112 N.J. 384, 424 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1022, 109 S. Ct. 1146, 103 L. Ed.2d 205 (1989). Involuntary intoxication is intoxication that is either not self-induced or is pathological. Involuntary intoxication is a complete defense if the level of intoxication is so high that the defendant is not aware of the nature and quality of his acts or is not aware that those acts are wrong. Sette, supra, 259 N.J. Super. at 170; N.J.S.A. 2C:2-8d. When the evidence and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, it is clear that there was no rational basis to support a charge on involuntary intoxication.
The other form of intoxication, "voluntary" or "self-induced," "is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense." N.J.S.A. 2C:2-8a; State v. Cameron, 104 N.J. 42, 51 (1986). In order to negate an element of the offense, the intoxication must be of an "extremely high level." Id. at 54;
Sette, supra, 259 N.J. Super. at 170. A jury charge on voluntary intoxication is required only if there exists a "rational basis for the conclusion that defendant's 'faculties' were so 'prostrated' that he or she was incapable of forming" the requisite intent.State v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402, 418-19 (1990). The determination of a particular defendant's intoxication is fact specific. Many cases have analyzed the defendant's consumption of intoxicants and found it to be sufficient to warrant a jury charge on intoxication. See, e.g., State v. Bey (II), 112 N.J. 123, 143-45 (1988) (holding that defendant's intoxication warranted a jury charge where defendant consumed 120 ounces of malt liquor, some straight rum and smoked a considerable quantity of marijuana during the four-and-one-half hour period before the crime and had only partial recall about the details of the offense), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 1131, 130 L. Ed.2d 1093 (1995); see also State v. Warren, 104 N.J. 571, 573-74, 578 (1986); State v. Frankland, 51 N.J. 221, 222-23 (1968); State v. Polk, 164 N.J. Super. 457, 460-63 (App. Div. 1977), aff'd o.b., 78 N.J. 539 (1979).
Other courts have found that a defendant's actions were sufficiently coherent that a jury charge was not warranted. See, e.g.,Mauricio, supra, 117 N.J. at 419-20 (finding insufficient evidence to require a jury charge where bouncer refused defendant admission to nightclub in the belief that he had already had enough to drink, and witnesses testified that defendant was "drunk," "intoxicated," and "high," but where,
during the hour preceding the crime, defendant was able to count, walk, climb stairs, change his clothes, and stand up after being wrestled down a flight of stairs, and defendant managed to elude detection by the police who arrived shortly after the shooting); see also Zola, supra, 112 N.J. at 423-25; Cameron, supra, 104 N.J. at 56-57; State v. Micheliche, 220 N.J. Super. 532, 542-43 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 109 N.J. 40 (1987).
The only evidence of possible intoxication was Trooper Timko's testimony that when defendant was arrested in the marshy
area he was unable to stand or walk without support. According to Timko, defendant spoke in a loud and boisterous manner and rambled at times. Although Timko did not smell any alcohol on defendant's breath, he noticed that defendant's eyes were watery and bloodshot, and he felt that defendant was under the influence of an intoxicant. Timko's testimony, however, was contradicted by Officer McGowan who also observed defendant as he was taken into custody. According to McGowan, defendant was able to stand and walk. Additionally, Officer Jones, who had observed and spoken with defendant earlier that morning in the Trump Plaza, claimed that defendant did not stagger or sway while carrying suitcases out of the Trump Plaza parking garage.
Most importantly, voluntary intoxication was not a defense in this case since it did not negate the purposeful or knowing mental states required for the commission of the crimes with which defendant was charged. Cameron, supra, 104 N.J. at 51-52.
Dr. Erskine admitted that defendant was able to perform purposeful activities on the dates of the crimes and that his knowing capacity was not impaired.
Labels: Conviction upheld even though intoxication defense not brought before jury STATE BAUMAN298 N.J. Super. 176. (1997)
Mere failure to stop does not constitute flight to convict a driver of eluding police.
Mere failure to stop does not constitute flight to convict a driver of eluding police. In order for jurors to find that the defendant fled or attempted to elude the police, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) knew that (he/she) was being pursued by police officers, but still did not stop.1
State v. Mendez, 345 N.J. Super. 498, 507-509 (App. Div. 2001)
Before Judges Skillman, Wallace, Jr. and Wells.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Salem County, Indictment No. 98-08-00319.
Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney for appellants (Jay L. Wilensky, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief in A-3895-99T4; Bernadette DeCastro, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief in A-4801-99T4).
John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Johanna Barba, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief in A-3895-99T4 and A-4801-99T4).
Shortly thereafter, the troopers returned to the route of their pursuit of defendants to search for the items they had seen Timothy throw out the car window. They found a lottery ticket with a glassine bag and small straw inside it, which they deduced had been thrown from the car because it was dry and the ground was wet from rain earlier in the evening. However, the troopers were not able to find any white powder or the other items they had seen Timothy throw from the car.
Testifying on his own behalf, Jose denied going through stop signs or committing any other motor vehicle infractions during the troopers' pursuit of the car. However, he admitted recognizing the troopers at the outset of the chase, seeing their overhead lights go on, knowing that they wanted him to stop, and deliberately failing to do so. When asked why he did not stop immediately after the troopers activated their overhead lights, Jose responded:
Well, all the streets that we were on were all dark roads, and there's no -- there's really no room to pull a car over and you still be off the road, and there's no lights anywhere on none of those roads, and it was dark. And I don't have the best -- I don't -- with the cops, me and the cops, they don't get along with me, period.
Based on this evidence, the jury found Jose guilty of second degree eluding a police officer, in violation of N.J.S.A.2C:29- 2b, and possession of a police scanner while in the course of committing or attempting to commit a crime, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-22. The jury found Timothy guilty of tampering with physical evidence, in violation ofN.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1), possession of a police scanner while in the course of committing or attempting to commit a crime, and the disorderly persons offense of resisting arrest, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a. The jury acquitted both defendants of possession of cocaine charges.
The court sentenced Jose to a seven year term of imprisonment for eluding and a concurrent nine month term for unlawful possession of a police scanner. The court sentenced Timothy to eighteen month terms of imprisonment for tampering with evidence and unlawful possession of a police scanner and six months for resisting arrest, all to be served concurrently.
Defendants filed separate appeals from their convictions, which we now consolidate. We reject the arguments raised in both appeals, and affirm defendants' convictions.
Jose Mendez's primary argument is that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury with respect to the charge of eluding. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b states in pertinent part:
Any person, while operating a motor vehicle on any street or highway in this State . . . , who knowingly flees or attempts to elude any police or law enforcement officer after having received any signal from such officer to bring the vehicle . . . to a full stop commits a crime of the third degree; except that, a person is guilty of a crime of the second degree if the flight or attempt to elude creates a risk of death or injury to any person.See footnote 11
Defendant argues that because eluding may consist of an "attempt[] to elude," the court was required to instruct the jury in accordance with the law of attempt, specifically that the State had to prove that defendant had the purpose to elude the police.
Defendant did not object to the court's eluding instruction at trial. Therefore, any error in this instruction would be grounds for reversal only if it were plain error. See State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 54 (1997).
The offense of eluding a law enforcement officer by motor vehicle was not part of the original Code of Criminal Justice (Code) enacted in 1978, L. 1978, c. 95, and, unlike most other offenses proscribed by the Code, it is not derived from the Model Penal Code. Although similar provisions may be found in the laws of a number of other jurisdictions,see, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-116.5 (1999); Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.540 (1999); Wis. Stat. § 346.04 (1999), we have not been able to locate any case authority pertinent to the issue presented in this appeal. Therefore, we must decide the issue solely on the basis of the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b and the general structure of the Code.
Mirroring the Model Penal Code, chapter five of the Code recognizes a basic distinction between "substantive" criminal offenses and "inchoate" offenses such as attempts and conspiracies. See New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, the New Jersey Penal Code, Vol. II: Commentary, (hereinafter New Jersey Penal Code Commentary), Introductory Note to Ch. 5, at 111-13 (1971). The defining characteristic of an inchoate offense is "conduct . . . designed to culminate in the commission of a substantive offense." Id. at 111. Thus, "these offenses always presuppose a purpose to commit another crime." Ibid. (quoting Model Penal Code (Tentative Draft No. 10, 1960), art. 5 commentary at 24-26).
Consistent with this view of inchoate offenses, "N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 makes criminal all attempts to commit other crimesdefined in the Code, when certain circumstances are present." State v. Robinson, 136 N.J. 476, 484 (1994). Those circumstances are set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a, which provides:
The common characteristic of the three forms of criminal attempts proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a is that "the actor must have for his purpose engaging in the criminal conduct or accomplishing the criminal result which is an element of the substantive crime." New Jersey Penal Code Commentary, supra, cmt. 3 on 2C:5-1 at 114; see Robinson, supra, 136N.J. at 484-86.
Viewed in light of these principles, it is evident that the offense of eluding a law enforcement officer by motor vehicle is a substantive criminal offense rather than an inchoate offense involving an attempt to commit another offense. First of all, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b was enacted as an amendment to the resisting arrest provision in chapter twenty-nine of the Code, L. 1981, c. 290, § 28, which proscribes substantive criminal offenses, rather than chapter five, which proscribes attempts and other inchoate offenses.See footnote 22 Moreover, eluding consists simply of fleeing by motor vehicle from a person who the perpetrator knows to be a law enforcement officer. See State v. Seymour, 289 N.J. Super. 80, 86-87 (App. Div. 1996). Eluding does not involve an attempt to commit any other substantive offense.
Most importantly, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b includes a culpability requirement that is different from the culpability requirement of an attempt. Although a person must act with the "purpose" to commit a substantive offense to be found guilty of an attempt, Robinson, supra, 136 N.J. at 484, the offense of eluding consists simply of "knowingly" fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer by motor vehicle after receiving a signal to stop. See State v. Fuqua, 303 N.J. Super. 40, 44 (App. Div. 1997).
The Code recognizes four different kinds of culpability, which are separately defined in the subsections of N.J.S.A.2C:2- 2(b): (1) "purposely," (2) "knowingly," (3) "recklessly" and (4) "negligently." The Code also recognizes that "the material elements of offenses . . . may involve (1) the nature of forbidden conduct, . . . (2) the attendant circumstances or (3) the result of conduct." New Jersey Penal Code Commentary, supra, cmt. 3 on 2C:2-2 at 40 (1971). A culpability requirement applies with respect to each of these types of material elements. Ibid.See footnote 33 Where the applicable culpability requirement is "knowingly":
The "attendant circumstances" of eluding under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b are that the defendant must "hav[e] received [a] signal . . . to bring the vehicle . . . to a full stop" and the person giving the signal must have been a "police or law enforcement officer." The "forbidden conduct" is "flee[ing] or attempt[ing] to elude." The material elements of eluding do not include any required "result" of such conduct.
The only culpability requirement set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b is "knowingly." N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(c)(1) provides that "[w]hen the law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of an offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears."See footnote 44 Therefore, "unless a contrary purpose plainly appears," the culpability requirement of both the attendant circumstances of being signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer and the forbidden conduct of fleeing or attempting to elude is "knowingly."
Defendant does not dispute that the culpability requirement of the attendant circumstance elements of eluding -- that the defendant had received a signal to stop and that the person giving the signal was a law enforcement officer -- is "knowingly." However, defendant contends that because the "forbidden conduct" element of eluding includes not only "flee[ing]" but also "attempt[ing] to elude," the culpability requirement for this element is "purposely."
This argument cannot be reconciled with the legislative determination that the culpability requirement of eluding underN.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b is "knowingly" and the constructional rule of N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(c)(1) that a culpability requirement applies to all elements of an offense unless a contrary intent "plainly appears." Although the phrase "knowingly attempts," which does not appear anywhere in the Model Penal Code, may initially appear internally inconsistent because the culpability requirement of a criminal attempt is "purposeful" conduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1a, the use of the word "attempts" in the definition of a substantive offense does not necessarily reflect a legislative intent to import the law of attempt, including the "purposeful" culpability requirement, into that offense. Instead, the probable legislative intent in defining the conduct element of eluding as "flees or attempts to elude" rather than "flees or eludes" was to foreclose any argument that success in avoiding police apprehension is an element of the offense, as is the case with certain other offenses proscribed by chapter 29, such as escape (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5).See footnote 55 The phrase "attempts to elude" makes it clear that the conduct forbidden by N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b is the act of flight or eluding, and that the elements of the offense do not include a "result" element of success in avoiding apprehension by a law enforcement officer.See footnote 66
Because the culpability requirement of the conduct element of eluding is "knowingly" rather than "purposely," the State was not required to prove that Jose's "conscious object," N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(1), in fleeing from the troopers was to avoid apprehension. Instead, the State was only required to prove he was "aware" that he was fleeing from the troopers. N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(2); see State v. Speth, 323 N.J. Super. 67, 87 (App. Div. 1999) (holding that the "knowingly" culpability requirement of the offense of witness tampering, which proscribes "knowingly attempt[ing]" to induce a witness to give false testimony (see n.5 infra), can be satisfied by showing that "defendant [was] aware that he was attempting to tamper with a witness.").See footnote 77
In instructing the jury, the trial court provided adequate guidance concerning the "knowingly" culpability requirement of eluding:
Although the trial court also could have informed the jury that it had to find Jose was "aware" he was fleeing the police during the pursuit, this requirement was implicit in the court's instructions that the State had to prove that Jose "knew" Trooper Mulholland was a law enforcement officer and "knew" that Mulholland had signaled him to stop. Moreover, it is clear that even under Jose's own version of the events of May 8, 1998, he had the knowledge required to support his conviction for eluding. According to Jose, he knew that the persons in the State Police car were State troopers and, when the troopers activated their overhead lights, he also knew that they wanted him to stop. But despite this knowledge, he drove his car a distance of approximately five miles with the State troopers in pursuit. Therefore, the trial court did not commit plain error in instructing the jury regarding the "knowingly" culpability requirement of eluding.
Defendant Timothy Mendez's primary argument is that his conviction for tampering with physical evidence must be vacated because his release of a white powdery substance out the car window during the police chase did not constitute evidence tampering. This offense is proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1), which provides:
(1) Alters, destroys, conceals or removes any article, object, record, document or other thing of physical substance with purpose to impair its verity or availability in such proceeding or investigation . . . .
The State's theory was by releasing the white powder into the air Timothy "alter[ed]" or "destroy[ed]" the substance "with the purpose to impair its . . . availability" in a police investigation.
In arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for evidence tampering, Timothy relies primarily upon our decision in State v. Sharpless, 314 N.J. Super. 440, 457-59 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 157 N.J. 542(1998), which held that a drug dealer could not be found guilty of this offense for dropping bags containing drugs on the ground as the police approached him. The focus of our decision in Sharpless was the distinction between "conceal[ment]" of evidence, which is proscribed by N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1), and "abandonment" of evidence, which is not a crime:
Persons who possess criminal contraband generally seek to keep it hidden from others, especially the police. It is common, for example, for drug dealers to maintain their supply of drugs some place other than on their persons. It is also common for persons who possess criminal contraband to discard it upon the approach of the police. Consequently, if such conduct were held to constitute tampering with evidence, any person in possession of contraband who took any steps to prevent the police from discovering the contraband could be charged not only with the possessory offense but also with tampering with evidence. Absent a clearer indication that this was the Legislature's intent in enacting N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6, we decline to reach this conclusion. Instead, consistent with the court's interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(1) in Fuqua, we construe the phrase "conceal[ment]" of "any article . . . with the purpose to impair its availability in [an investigation]" in N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6 to refer only to "evidence of a completed criminal act, not a current possessory crime." Fuqua, supra, 303 N.J. Super. at 47, 696 A.2d 44. Under this analysis, defendant's abandonment of his drug supply occurred during the course of his ongoing possession of heroin with the intent to distribute and consequently did not constitute tampering with evidence.
[Id. at 459.]
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's decision in Commonwealth v. Delgado, 679 A.2d 223 (Pa. 1996), which we relied upon in Sharpless, also turned on the distinction between "concealment" and "abandonment" of evidence. In concluding that the defendant's act of discarding drugs as he was being pursued by the police would not support a conviction for the Pennsylvania counterpart to N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1), the court stated:
[Defendant's] act of discarding contraband in plain view of the police does not rise to a level of conduct that constitutes the destruction or concealment of evidence as contemplated by the statute. The act of throwing the bag of cocaine while being chased by the police was nothing more than an abandonment of the evidence.
On the other hand, the Pennsylvania courts have recognized that a person who destroys or attempts to destroy drugs at the time of an arrest or police stop may be found guilty of evidence tampering. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Morales, 669 A.2d 1003, 1005-06 (Pa. Super. 1996) (affirming conviction for evidence tampering of defendant who swallowed apparent heroin when stopped by police); Commonwealth v. Govens, 632 A.2d 1316, 1328-29 (Pa. Super. 1993) (affirming conviction for evidence tampering of defendant who flushed cocaine down the toilet as police entered his apartment), appeal denied, 652 A.2d 1321(Pa. 1994).
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has construed Tennessee's counterpart to N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1) in a similar manner. In State v. Patton, 898 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994), appeal denied, (Tenn. 1995), the court held that a defendant who "toss[ed] aside" a bag of marijuana as the police were chasing him could not be found guilty of evidence tampering because this conduct constituted "mere abandonment" of contraband. On the other hand, in State v. Logan, 973 S.W.2d 279, 281-82 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), the court affirmed a conviction for evidence tampering of a defendant who "successfully destroyed the contents of twelve . . . bags [of cocaine] by placing them in the toilet."
The courts in other jurisdictions have also held, consistent with Sharpless, that simply throwing away contraband as the police approach does not constitute "concealment" that will support a conviction for evidence tampering, see e.g., Vigue v. State, 987 P.2d 204, 206-11 (Alaska Ct. App. 1999); In re M.F., 734 N.E.2d 171, 175-79 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000), but that swallowing drugs or other conduct that makes contraband unavailable to the police constitutes "destruction" of evidence that will support a conviction for this offense. See, e.g., Frayer v. People, 684 P.2d 927 (Colo. 1984) (affirming conviction for evidence tampering for breaking bottle of narcotic cough syrup during arrest); Lewis v. State, 56 S.W.3d 617, 624-26 (Texas Ct. App. 2001) (affirming conviction for evidence tampering for swallowing cocaine during police stop of vehicle).
In this case, the State's evidence showed that Timothy Mendez held a bag containing a white powdery substance, which the State hypothesized was cocaine, outside the window of a moving car during a police chase, allowing the substance to dissipate into the air and thus causing it to become unavailable as evidence. This conduct was comparable to swallowing or flushing drugs down a toilet, which the courts in other jurisdictions have held to constitute "destruction" of evidence within the intent of evidence tampering statutes similar to N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1). See, e.g., Morales, supra, 669 A. 2d at 1005-06; Govens, supra, 632A. 2d at 1328-29; Logan, supra, 973 S.W. 2d at 281-82; Lewis, supra, 56 S.W. 3d at 624-26. Such conduct does not constitute mere abandonment of evidence and is sufficient to support a conviction for evidence tampering.
Timothy also argues that even if the State's evidence would have supported a conviction for evidence tampering, the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury that it had to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the evidence he allegedly tampered with was not contained in the glassine bags found in the search of the car. However, there is nothing in the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1) or Sharpless that precludes a defendant from being found guilty of tampering with evidence derived from the same source as unlawfully possessed contraband. Therefore, the jury verdict sheet question as to whether the evidence Timothy allegedly tampered with came from the same bags later found in the Mendez car was superfluous, and any error in the jury instructions relating to that question was harmless.
Defendants' other arguments do not require extensive discussion. Defendants argue that the reversal of Jose's conviction for eluding and Timothy's conviction for evidence tampering also would require the reversal of their convictions for unlawful possession of a police radio scanner, because possession of a scanner during the commission or attempt to commit another offense is one of the elements of that offense. Our affirmance of the eluding and evidence tampering convictions moots this argument. In addition, Jose argues that the seven- year term of imprisonment imposed upon him for second degree eluding was excessive. This argument is clearly without merit. R.2:11-3(e)(2).
Footnote: 1 1 As a result of a 1995 amendment, L. 1995, c. 401, § 54, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b now also applies to eluding by "any vessel" as defined in N.J.S.A. 12:7-7l.
Footnote: 2 2 We recognize that a few inchoate offenses, such as possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4, are placed in sections of the Code outside of chapter five. See State v. Harmon, 104 N.J. 189, 203-04 (1986).
Footnote: 3 3 For a general discussion of the culpability requirements contained in the Model Penal Code, which were incorporated in the Code of Criminal Justice, see Paul H. Robinson and Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code & Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 681 (1983).
Footnote: 4 4 For a discussion of this section, see American Law Institute, Model Penal Code & Commentaries,Part I § 2.02, cmt. 6 at 245-46 (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1985).
Footnote: 5 5 This also was the apparent legislative intent in using the phrase "knowingly attempts" in several other sections of the Code. See N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5 ("knowingly attempts to induce or otherwise cause a witness or informant to: (1) Testify or inform falsely; (2) Withhold any testimony, information, document or thing; (3) Elude legal process summoning him to testify or supply evidence; or (4) Absent himself from any proceeding or investigation to which he has been legally summoned."); N.J.S.A. 2C:12-11 ("knowingly . . . attempts to exercise unlawful control over a firearm or other weapon in the possession of a law enforcement or corrections officer.").
Footnote: 6 6 We recognize that another panel of this court has indicated, without explanation, that in a prosecution for witness tampering, which consists of "knowingly attempt[ing] to induce or otherwise cause" false testimony, N.J.S.A. 2C:28-5(a)(1), the jury must be instructed that the offense "incorporates a requirement forpurposeful action or omission." State v. Crescenzi, 224 N.J. Super. 142, 147 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 111 N.J. 597(1988). We respectfully disagree with this interpretation of the phrase "knowingly attempts," at least as applied to the offense of eluding.
Footnote: 7 7 The Model Jury Instructions, as amended in 1999, state in pertinent part:
In order to convict the defendant of third degree eluding, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following six (6) elements:
1. That [defendant] was operating a motor vehicle on a street or highway in this state.
2. That [the officer] was a police or law enforcement officer.
3. That [the officer] signaled [defendant] to bring the vehicle to a full stop.
4. That [defendant] knew that the officer had signaled (him/her) to bring the vehicle to a full stop.
5. That [defendant] knew that [the officer] was a police or law enforcement officer.
6. That defendant knowingly fled or attempted to elude the officer.
Mere failure to stop does not constitute flight. To find flight, you must find that the defendant's purpose in leaving was to avoid being stopped by the officer.
A person acts knowingly with respect to the attendant circumstances of his/her conduct if he/she is aware that such circumstances exist, or is aware of a high probability of their existence. "Knowing" or "with knowledge" or equivalent terms have the same meaning.
Although the part of this instruction following the six listed elements appears inconsistent with the first part and fails to clearly specify the culpability requirement applicable to each of the elements of eluding, it seems to indicate that the culpability requirement of the attendant circumstances is "knowingly" but that the culpability requirement of the forbidden conduct is "purposely." Therefore, this instruction is inconsistent with our interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2b, and must be modified.
Labels: Mere failure to stop does not constitute flight to convict a driver of eluding police.
Intoxication as Defense to Criminal charge 2c-2-8....
DL Suspension on Traffic Ticket Requires Willful V...
Police Could Not Lift Up Shirt for Terry Frisk. S...
Protective Sweep After Gunshot Sometimes Permitted...
Abandoned Bag Permits Search. State v. Carvajal ...
Officer Must Read Additional Warnings State v S...
Max 180 Days Jail in a Municipal Court Case Stat...
No Warrantless Search based on smell of weed S...
No Statement Admissible by Non-Appearing Witness. ...
Investigatory Stop Permitted where Articulable Sus...
Conviction upheld even though intoxication defense...
Mere failure to stop does not constitute flight to...
police were required to obtain a warrant before se...
Slapping rude child not child abuse New Jersey Div...
No exigent circumstances required suppression of d...
STATE OF NEW JERSEY V. OMAR TINDELL A-5457-07T4
State must prove defendant knowingly possessed pot...
State v. Triestman, 416 N.J. Super. 195, 220-21 (A...
<!--StartFragment--> STATE OF NEW JERSEY, ...
Conviction affirmed on eluding BASSEM M. ABDOLRAZE...
STATE v TIMOTHY R. MENDEZ, 345 N.J. Super. 498
MARICIC Digital Data download required in discover...