Title: State v. Thomas F. Kromphold
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-71-98
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: February 1, 2000

(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 interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). STEIN, J., writing for a unanimous Court. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the sentencing court impermissibly considered elements of the offense of aggravated assault as an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. On March 1, 1996, Thomas Kromphold's vehicle, while traveling on the wrong side of the road, collided head on with another vehicle driven by Piin-Chau Suen. Kromphold was arrested after he admitted he was intoxicated and after failing roadside sobriety tests. A blood sample taken a short time later revealed a blood alcohol level of .382 percent, more than triple the legal limit. There were three passengers in the Suen vehicle. Suen suffered whiplash. Taonan Tsai, Suen's friend, fractured his left thumb, requiring surgery and causing him to miss one month of work. Shin Ru Shih, Suen's wife, suffered a broken collarbone, fractured ribs, and also had her spleen removed, which increased her vulnerability to infections. She suffered seven infections in less than one year, one of which occurred during pregnancy and required her hospitalization. Shin Ru Shih had worked as a biochemist in a laboratory prior to the accident. She had to change professions because of the increased risk of infections attributable to the splenectomy. Jenfei Shih, Tsai's wife, was the most seriously injured. She lost all the vision in her left eye and sustained severe eyelid damage and permanent facial scarring. Her skull and left elbow were fractured. Jenfei Shih was twenty-six weeks pregnant at the time of the accident, and a doctor testified that the trauma of the accident led to complications in the pregnancy and the premature birth of the baby. The child was born functionally underdeveloped and was undergoing therapy at the time of Kromphold's sentencing. Kromphold was charged with three counts of second-degree aggravated assault based on the separate injuries sustained by Shin Ru Shih, Jenfei Shih, and Tsai. The aggravated assault statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1), provides that a person is guilty of second-degree aggravated assault if he or she [a]ttempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or . . . under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life recklessly causes such injury. At trial, the State produced a forensic scientist who testified concerning Kromphold's blood alcohol level and the effect it had on his ability to drive. Kromphold, who was thirty-three years old at the time of trial, testified that he began drinking at the age of ten, that he was an alcoholic, and that he regularly drove under the influence of alcohol. As part of the jury charge, the trial court explained the elements of aggravated assault and instructed the jury that it may consider the degree of intoxication in determining whether circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life existed. The jury found Kromphold guilty of the two counts of second-degree aggravated assault involving injuries caused to Shin Ru Shih and Jenfei Shih. The jury acquitted on the aggravated assault count as to Tsai, finding Kromphold guilty of the lesser-included offense of assault by auto. At sentencing, the trial court found four aggravating factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense; the seriousness of the harm inflicted on the victims; the risk defendant will commit another offense; and the need to deter defendant and others. Concerning the first aggravating factor, the trial court noted Kromphold's incredibly high blood alcohol reading of .382 and his testimony that he routinely drove drunk, stating that it attributed enormous weight to this aggravating factor. Concerning the second aggravating factor, the harm inflicted on the victims, the court found that Shin Ru Shih and Jenfei Shih each suffered multiple serious injuries, each of which could satisfy the elements of serious bodily injury. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the aggravating factors substantially outweighed the mitigating factors and sentenced Kromphold to a ten-year term of imprisonment with five years of parole ineligibility on each of the two counts of aggravated assault. The court determined that those sentences were to run consecutively because there were multiple victims. Kromphold received lesser concurrent sentences for the assault-by-auto conviction and for other motor vehicle violations. His aggregate sentence was twenty years with ten years parole ineligibility. The Appellate Division also found that the second aggravating factor, the gravity and seriousness of harm inflicted on the victims, was established with regard to the assault of Jenfei Shih, but not Shin Ru Shih. In determining the presence of that factor, the panel adopted the definition of serious bodily injury contained in the aggravated assault statute, N.J.S.A.. 2C:11-1(b). The Appellate Division found that the application of the seriousness-of-harm factor to the assault of Shin Ru Shih resulted in double-counting. It reasoned that the loss of her spleen satisfied the serious bodily injury prong of the aggravated assault statute, but her other injuries did not. Thus, according to the panel, the assault of Shin Ru Shih did not result in additional injury that could be considered for purposes of that aggravating factor. Exercising its original jurisdiction pursuant to R. 2:10-5, the Appellate Division modified Kromphold's sentence. Concerning the assault of Shin Ru Shih, the panel found that the remaining aggravating factors did not outweigh the mitigating factors, and reduced the sentence on that count to a flat term of seven years. Finding the sentence on Kromphold's assault of Jenfei Shih to be harsh and arguably unreasonable, the Appellate Division reduced the sentence on that count to an eight-year term with three years of parole ineligibility. The panel affirmed the consecutive nature of those sentences, resulting in an aggregate term of fifteen years imprisonment with three years of parole ineligibility. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition for certification. HELD: Kromphold's sentence is the product of double-counting evidence regarding the level of his intoxication, but there was no double-counting as to the seriousness of the harm to the victims. 1. The Code of Criminal Justice confers on a sentencing court limited power to depart from presumptive sentences if it finds a preponderance of specified aggravating or mitigating factors. In State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985), the Court recognized that facts that established elements of a crime for which a defendant is sentenced should not be considered as aggravating circumstances in determining that sentence. The rationale is that the Legislature already considered the elements in the gradation of the offense. And, double-counting of elements as aggravating factors could interfere with one of the Code's paramount goals -- uniformity in sentencing. (pp. 11-14) 2. The Court agrees with the Appellate Division that the sentencing court double-counted Kromphold's level of intoxication by supporting the first aggravating factor with the same evidence the jury considered in determining whether the State had proved the recklessness element of the offense. The Appellate Division erred, however, in reversing on the seriousness-of-harm aggravating factor as to Shin Ru Shih. Although the definition of serious bodily injury in the aggravated assault statute clearly contemplates a level of injury severe enough to trigger the seriousness-of-harm aggravating factor, that aggravating factor encompasses a broader and less precise concept that permits the exercise of sound discretion by the sentencing court in determining whether the factor applies. Accordingly, the Court is persuaded that the trial court's reliance on the seriousness-of-harm aggravating factor is fully supported by the evidence in the record. The Court is further persuaded that this is not an instance in which appellate modification of the sentence is appropriate, and a remand to the sentencing court is therefore required. (pp. 14-21) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court, Law Division, for resentencing in conformity with this opinion. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, GARIBALDI, COLEMAN, LONG, and VERNIERO join in JUSTICE STEIN'S opinion. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS F. KROMPHOLD, Defendant-Respondent. Argued September 28, 1999 -_ Decided February 1, 2000 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Gerard C. Sims, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, argued the case for the appellant (John J. Farmer, Jr., Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Dennis A. Cipriano argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Cipriano, attorney; James T. Peck, IV, on the brief). The opinion of the Court was delivered by STEIN, J. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the court that sentenced defendant Thomas Kromphold impermissibly considered elements of the offense of aggravated assault as aggravating factors for sentencing purposes. In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division reduced defendant's aggregate sentence, holding that the trial court double-counted evidence of the extent of defendant's intoxication by considering that evidence as an aggravating factor for sentencing after having authorized the jury to consider the same evidence in determining whether the State had proved recklessness, an element of the charged offense of second degree aggravated assault. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter to t he Law Division for further proceedings in conformance with this opinion. According to the defendant's testimony, he's been drinking heavily for the past 20 years, and at the time of this crash he was drinking a bottle of whiskey every day, and he would drive drunk all the time, every day, year in, year out. As I recall it, he testified he routinely drove drunk. This [c]ourt finds that this aggravating factor has enormous weight. Concerning the second aggravating factor, the gravity and seriousness of the harm inflicted on the victims, the court found that Shin Ru Shih and Jenfei Shih each suffered multiple serious injuries, each of which could satisfy the elements of serious bodily injury. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the aggravating factors substantially outweighed the mitigating factors. Based on those findings, defendant was sentenced to a ten-year term of imprisonment with five years of parole ineligibility on each of the two counts of aggravated assault. The court determined that those sentences were to run consecutively because there were multiple victims. Defendant received a concurrent eighteen-month sentence for the assault-by-auto conviction, and a concurrent term of ninety days for other Title 39 motor vehicle violations. Accordingly, defendant's aggregate sentence was twenty years with ten years parole ineligibility. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant's convictions but modified defendant's sentence. The panel held that the sentencing court impermissibly double-counted as an aggravating factor evidence that was considered by the jury in convicting defendant of aggravated assault as defined by N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1). The Appellate Division rejected the trial court's finding that defendant's blood alcohol level of .382 percent supported the first aggravating factor, the nature and circumstances of the offense and defendant's role therein. The panel noted that the State relied on defendant's blood alcohol level to establish that he recklessly caused the victims' injuries under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, an element of the underlying offense, and that the trial court instructed the jury that it could consider the degree of defendant's intoxication in determining whether the State established that element. The Appellate Division found that the second aggravating factor, the gravity and seriousness of harm inflicted on the victims, was established with regard to the assault of Jenfei Shih, but not Shin Ru Shih. In determining the presence of that factor, the panel adopted the definition of serious bodily injury contained in the aggravated assault statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1(b): bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Concerning Jenfei Shih, the panel found that because she suffered multiple serious bodily injuries, one of those injuries could have been considered by the jury as an element of aggravated assault and another of those injuries could have been considered by the sentencing court as an aggravating sentencing factor. The Appellate Division found, however, that the application of the gravity-and-seriousness_of-harm factor to the assault of Shin Ru Shih resulted in double-counting. The panel determined that the loss of her spleen satisfied the serious bodily injury prong of the aggravated assault statute, but concluded that her fractured collarbone and fractured ribs did not qualify as serious bodily injuries. Thus, unlike the assault of Jenfei Shih, the assault of Shin Ru Shih did not result in an additional injury that could be considered for purposes of that aggravating factor. Exercising its original jurisdiction pursuant to R. 2:10-5, the Appellate Division modified defendant's sentence. Concerning defendant's conviction for the aggravated assault of Shin Ru Shih, the panel found that the record did not support the sentencing court's findings concerning the aggravating factors and that the remaining aggravating factors, the risk defendant would commit another offense and the need to deter, did not outweigh the mitigating factors. Accordingly, the Appellate Division reduced defendant's sentence on that count from ten years imprisonment with five years parole ineligibility to a term of seven years with no period of parole ineligibility. Finding the sentence on defendant's conviction for the aggravated assault of Jenfei Shih to be harsh and arguably unreasonable, the Appellate Division modified the sentence on that count to an eight-year term with three years of parole ineligibility. The panel affirmed the consecutive nature of those sentences, noting the principle that there should be no free crimes. The panel also affirmed the concurrent eighteen-month sentence for the assault-by-auto conviction, resulting in an aggregate term of fifteen years imprisonment with three years of parole ineligibility. We granted the State's petition for certification. 158 N.J. 74 (1999). We now consider whether defendant's sentence is the product of double-counting and whether the gravity and seriousness of harm factor, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1a(2), is properly evaluated under the definition of serious bodily injury contained in the aggravated assault statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1(b). CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, GARIBALDI, COLEMAN, LONG, and VERNIERO join in JUSTICE STEIN's opinion. NO. A-71 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THOMAS F. KROMPHOLD, Defendant-Respondent. DECIDED February 1, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz