Title: State v. Robert O. Marshall
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: a-32-01
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: July 30, 2002

Marshall, a Toms River insurance agent, began an extramarital affair with Sarann Kraushaar, a married woman, in June 1983. As early as December 1983, Marshall mentioned to Kraushaar the idea of killing his wife. In 1984, after making inquiries about hiring an investigator, Marshall was put in touch with Billy Wayne McKinnon, a former sheriff s officer from Louisiana. Marshall agreed to pay McKinnon $5,000 to meet him in Atlantic City. McKinnon came to Atlantic City in June 1984 and Marshall offered to pay him $65,000 to kill his wife the $5,000 he had already paid, $10,000 up front, and $50,000 from the expected insurance proceeds on his wife s life. Marshall gave McKinnon an additional $7,000 and a picture of his wife, and told McKinnon to kill his wife that evening, when Marshall would be present. Marshall believed he would not be considered a suspect because he was an outstanding citizen with influence in the community. McKinnon did not carry out the murder at that time. Marshall communicated with him on numerous occasions and sent him additional money. McKinnon returned to Atlantic City in July 1984 and met with Marshall, who proposed a second plan for the killing to take place that evening. However, McKinnon did not complete the job that evening, either. Marshall offered McKinnon an extra $15,000 if he would return to New Jersey a third time to do the job. McKinnon agreed, and met Marshall in September 1984. Together they selected a spot on the Garden State Parkway to carry out the murder and made final plans for the murder. The plan was to make the murder look like a robbery. Marshall took his wife to a casino under the pretext of an evening of dining and gambling. Marshall met McKinnon outside the casino and told him that he and Maria would be leaving the casino about midnight. As previously arranged with McKinnon, Marshall pulled into a picnic area on the Parkway while his wife was sleeping. Marshall got out of the car under the ruse of needing to repair a flat tire. Marshall was hit on the head as part of the simulated robbery. Maria was shot in the back twice and died immediately. When police arrived on the scene, Marshall continued to make the murder look like a robbery. The State argued at the trial that Marshall even staged a suicide attempt. Marshall protested his innocence then and continues to do so now. Telephone records traced Marshall to McKinnon, who turned State s evidence. In exchange for a plea to conspiracy to commit murder, McKinnon implicated Marshall and identified a Louisiana man, Larry Thompson, as the triggerman. Investigation disclosed that during his planning, Marshall had been increasing the insurance policies on his wife s life. At the time of her death, Maria Marshall s life was insured for about $1,400,000. Marshall was paying for his wife s premiums while neglecting his own. The State offered proof that Marshall could have been motivated to kill by rising debts incurred by his business. While amassing the large insurance policies on his wife, Marshall also continued his relationship with Sarann Kraushaar, with whom Marshall intended to live after the murder. A jury acquitted Thompson of the murder but accepted McKinnon s version of Marshall s role and found Marshall guilty of murder-by-hire. The only aggravating factor submitted to and found by the jury was that Marshall had hired another to commit murder. The two mitigating factors submitted to and found by the jury were that Marshall had no history of criminal activity and the catch-all mitigating factor. Neither party presented additional evidence at the sentencing phase, and therefore each side argued its case in closing arguments. The jury unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factor outweighed the mitigating factors, and Marshall was sentenced to death. This Court upheld Marshall s conviction and death sentence on direct review in Marshall I, and affirmed the proportionality of his death sentence in Marshall II. Marshall filed his first PCR petition in April 1991. The trial court issued an order denying the petition in February 1995. This Court affirmed the denial in Marshall III. On February 9, 2001, Marshall filed a second PCR petition. Marshall s claim is that the trial court s jury instructions in the penalty trial precluded the jury from rendering a non-unanimous verdict on the imposition of the death sentence. The State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the petition was time barred by Rule 3:22-12 (PCR to be filed within five years of sentence) and procedurally barred by Rule 3:22-5 (claim previously adjudicated on the merits). The trial court dismissed the PCR petition as procedurally barred by Rule 3:22-5. The trial court observed that the petition also was filed beyond the time limit imposed by Rule 3:22-12, but did not rely on the time bar when it dismissed the petition. HELD: The post-conviction relief petition was properly dismissed because it is both procedurally barred and time barred under the New Jersey Court Rules. 1. Under Rule 3:22-5, a petitioner cannot assert as a basis for relief in a PCR petition a claim previously adjudicated on the merits. For the bar to apply, the issue raised must be identical or substantially equivalent to an issue raised previously. Marshall s first PCR petition included over 500 claims of error. One of these, F.18, argued that Marshall was denied his right to a fair and reliable death penalty trial on the basis that the trial court s penalty phase instructions inadequately explained that a non-unanimous verdict was acceptable. The Court finds that F.18 presented the same argument that Marshall presents here. This Court adjudicated claim F.18 in Marshall III. In that opinion, the Court exhaustively reviewed many of the 500 grounds for reversal raised by Marshall and also summarily rejected without discussion many others that lacked merit. F.18 was one of the latter claims. (Pp. 9-14) 2. The Court s finding that the procedural bar of Rule 3:22-5 precludes consideration of Marshall s petition is dispositive. Nevertheless, the Court addresses the impact of the time constraints imposed by Rule 3:22-12 to provide guidance for future cases. Rule 3:22-12 states that no petition for PCR relief other than one to correct an illegal sentence shall be filed more than five years after rendition of the judgment or sentence unless it alleges facts showing that the delay was due to excusable neglect. Marshall s second PCR petition was filed well beyond the five-year time limit. His explanation for the late filing is that his previous counsel failed to raise the issue in the first PCR petition. This does not justify relief from the time bar because Marshall s previous counsel filed an extensive PCR petition that included, among many other claims, the very issue Marshall now raises regarding the trial court s unanimity charge. (Pp. 14-17) 3. Although Marshall s claim of error is barred because it was previously adjudicated and because it is time barred, the Court briefly addresses the merits of his claim for completeness. In a capital case, a death sentence does not result unless the jury s decision to impose the death sentence is unanimous. If the jury is unable to agree unanimously on a verdict of death, the defendant receives a sentence of life imprisonment. This Court has required that juries be informed of and be free to exercise their statutory option to return a final, non-unanimous verdict resulting in life imprisonment if, after a reasonable period of deliberation, the jurors demonstrate an inability to agree unanimously. Here, the trial court accurately emphasized that a verdict imposing the death sentence must reflect the unanimous decision of the jury. However, it also instructed the jury that a non-unanimous verdict would result in a sentence of imprisonment for life. It would have been preferable for the trial court to have more precisely informed the jury that a non-unanimous verdict was acceptable and that unanimity referred only to a verdict to impose the death sentence. The Court is satisfied that the charge, although not perfect, did not mislead the jury and therefore, did not constitute error. (Pp. 17-27) The judgment of the Law Division is AFFIRMED. JUSTICE LONG has filed a separate, dissenting opinion, expressing her view that the majority is mistaken in its application of the procedural bar of Rule 3:22-5; that where a defendant s life is at issue, the time bar of Rule 3:22-5 should be relaxed; and that based on the infirmity in the jury instruction regarding unanimity, Marshall s PCR petition should have been granted and the matter remanded for a new penalty-phase trial. JUSTICES STEIN, COLEMAN, LaVECCHIA, and ZAZZALI join in CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ s opinion. JUSTICE LONG has filed a separate, dissenting opinion. JUSTICE VERNIERO did not participate. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT O. MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant. Argued January 29, 2002 -- Decided July 30, 2002 On appeal from the Superior Court, Law Division, Atlantic County. Stephen W. Kirsch, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Peter A. Garcia, Acting Public Defender, attorney). Robert E. Bonpietro, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Peter C. Harvey, Acting Attorney General, attorney). The opinion of the Court was delivered by PORITZ, C.J. Defendant, Robert Marshall, was convicted for conspiracy to commit the murder of his wife, Maria Marshall, and for murder as an accomplice who arranged for the murder-by-hire of Maria Marshall. Following a separate sentencing proceeding, the trial court sentenced defendant to death, as required by the jury s verdict. In this second petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), defendant challenges the sentencing portion of his trial and seeks reversal of his death sentence on the ground that the trial court delivered erroneous instructions to the jury. The PCR court dismissed defendant s second PCR petition as procedurally barred, finding that the claim raised in the petition was adjudicated by this Court when it considered defendant s first PCR petition, State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 (1997) (Marshall III). The court also indicated that defendant filed his second PCR petition beyond the five-year time limit but did not dismiss the petition on that ground. We affirm the trial court s dismissal of defendant s petition. We find that the New Jersey Court Rules (Rules) preclude consideration of defendant s second PCR petition because it is both procedurally barred and time barred. R. 3:22-5; R. 3:22-12. Regardless of those bars, we observe that defendant s claim does not warrant relief for the reason that the trial court s penalty-phase instructions properly informed the jury of its sentencing options. Defendant, a Toms River insurance agent, began an extramarital affair with Sarann Kraushaar, a married woman, in June 1983. As early as December 1983, defendant mentioned to Kraushaar the idea of killing his wife, Maria. In May 1984, defendant met Robert Cumber of Louisiana and questioned him about hiring an investigator. Defendant later telephoned Cumber, who referred defendant to Billy Wayne McKinnon, a former sheriff s officer from Louisiana. Defendant agreed to pay McKinnon $5,000 to meet him in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Defendant met McKinnon at Harrah s Casino in Atlantic City on June 18, 1984, and offered to pay him $65,000 to kill his wife. In addition to the $5,000 that McKinnon had already received, defendant agreed to pay him $10,000 up front and $50,000 from the expected insurance proceeds on his wife s life. At that meeting defendant paid McKinnon $7,000 and gave him a picture of his wife. Defendant told McKinnon to kill her that evening, when defendant would be present. In preparation for the killing, defendant and McKinnon discussed various ways to kill Maria. Defendant believed that he would not be considered a suspect because he was considered an outstanding citizen with influence in the community. McKinnon did not carry out the murder at that time, but instead returned to Louisiana. Defendant communicated with him on numerous occasions and sent him additional money. Under pressure from defendant to complete the job, McKinnon returned to Atlantic City on July 19, 1984, and met with defendant, who proposed a second plan for the killing to take place that evening. Defendant told McKinnon that he would leave his wife in their car to be executed while defendant went into a restaurant under the pretense of using the bathroom facilities. However, McKinnon did not commit the murder at that time either. Defendant, persistent in his efforts to have his wife killed, offered McKinnon an extra fifteen ($15,000) if he would return to New Jersey a third time to do the job before Labor Day. McKinnon agreed, and, on September 6, 1984, he and defendant met at a service area parking lot located south of Toms River. Together they selected a spot on the Garden State Parkway to carry out Maria s murder and made final plans for the slaying, which was to occur that evening. The plan was to make the murder look like a robbery. Defendant took his wife to Harrah s Casino in Atlantic City on the night of September 6, 1984, under the pretext of an evening of dining and gambling. He met McKinnon outside Harrah s at approximately 9:30 p.m. and told him that he and Maria would be leaving the casino at about midnight. Defendant also asked McKinnon for the return of the photographs of Maria and of their home that he had given him in June. As previously arranged with McKinnon, defendant pulled into the Oyster Creek picnic area at milepost seventy-one on the Garden State Parkway at about 12:30 a.m. on September 7. While his wife lay sleeping on the front seat, defendant got out of the car under the ruse of needing to repair a flat tire. Defendant squatted down to prepare himself for being hit on the head as part of the simulated robbery. Maria Marshall was shot in the back twice. She died immediately. When the police arrived on the scene, defendant continued to make the murder look like a robbery. The State argues that defendant showed no remorse after the crime, but pretended to join his three sons in grieving over the loss of their mother. The State argued at the trial level that he even staged a suicide attempt. Defendant protested his innocence then and continues to do so now in explanation of his conduct. Defendant s claims of innocence soon unraveled. Telephone records traced him to McKinnon, who turned State s evidence. In exchange for a plea to conspiracy to commit murder, McKinnon implicated Marshall and identified a Louisiana man, Larry Thompson, as the triggerman. Investigation disclosed that during his planning, defendant had been increasing the insurance policies on his wife s life. At the time of her death, Maria Marshall s life was insured for about $1,400,000. Defendant had been paying his wife s premiums while neglecting his own. Defendant hastened to complete an application for a policy for a home mortgage before the murder. On the last day of her life, Maria underwent a physical examination for that policy. The State offered proof that defendant could have been motivated to kill by rising debts incurred in his business, including a $128,000 home-equity loan and a short-term bank debt in excess of $40,000. While amassing those large insurance policies, defendant also continued his relationship with Sarann Kraushaar, with whom he had intended to live after the murder. A jury acquitted Thompson of the murder but accepted McKinnon s version of defendant s role and found him guilty of conspiracy to commit his wife s murder and of murder-by-hire. The only aggravating factor submitted to and found by the jury was that defendant had hired another to commit murder. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(e). The two mitigating factors submitted to and found by the jury were that defendant had no history of criminal activity, [N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3]c(5)(f), and the catch-all mitigating factor, [N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3]c(5)(h). At the time of the offense defendant was forty-four years of age, and had been involved in charitable and community activities. The jury unanimously found beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factor outweighed the mitigating factors. The trial court sentenced defendant to death. [Marshall III, supra, 148 N.J. at 137-38; Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. at 121-24.] After defendant was convicted of capital murder in the guilt phase of his trial, a separate sentencing trial was held. See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(1). At the inception of the sentencing phase, defense counsel indicated that it was defendant s decision, with which counsel concurred, to call no witnesses during the sentencing proceeding. The State also offered no additional evidence, and therefore each side argued its case in closing arguments. The State presented one aggravating factor at the sentencing phase, that defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment or promise of payment of anything of pecuniary value, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(e), and relied on the proofs from the guilt phase of the trial to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant had paid money to hire others to kill his wife. The defense presented two mitigating factors: (1) that Marshall had no history of criminal activity, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(5)f; and (2) the catch-all mitigating factor, i.e., [a]ny other factor relevant to the defendant s character or record or to the circumstances of the offense, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(5)h. Both sides stipulated that defendant had no history of prior criminal activity. Although no additional evidence was presented in support of the catch-all mitigating factor, in his summation defense counsel argued that the evidence concerning Marshall s business, charitable, and community activities, which had been put before the jury in the guilt-phase trial, established that mitigating factor. The jury unanimously found the existence of the aggravating factor and also found evidence to support both mitigating factors. It concluded unanimously that the single aggravating factor outweighed the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced defendant to death. We upheld Marshall s conviction and death sentence on direct review, Marshall I, supra, 123 N.J. at 208, and affirmed the proportionality of his death sentence, Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. at 221. Defendant filed his first PCR petition with the Law Division, Atlantic County, on April 11, 1991. On February 8, 1995, the trial court issued an order denying the petition, and we affirmed the denial of relief on March 5, 1997. Marshall III, supra, 148 N.J. at 286. See footnote 1 On February 9, 2001, defendant filed a second PCR petition with the Law Division, Atlantic County. The State filed a Motion to Dismiss the second petition, arguing that it was time barred by Rule 3:22-12 and procedurally barred by Rule 3:22-5. The trial court heard oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on June 21, 2001 and subsequently issued an opinion granting the State s motion. Marshall filed a notice of appeal to this Court on July 19, 2001. The defendant was denied his right to fundamental fairness, due process and his right to a fair and reliable penalty trial, and was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of Article I, Paragraphs 1, 10, and 12 of the New Jersey Constitution, and the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States constitution, in that the trial court s penalty phase instructions inadequately explained that a non-unanimous verdict was acceptable. In his appellate brief for his first PCR petition defendant again alleged that [t]he trial court s penalty phase instructions inadequately explained that a non-unanimous verdict was acceptable. In this PCR petition defendant argues that the penalty-phase jury charge, while nominally informing the jury of the option of non-unanimity, left the jury far less free to return a non-unanimous verdict than a unanimous one. In State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 312 (1987), we held that this Court s decision in State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (1980), required that juries in capital cases be informed of, and free to exercise, their statutory option to return a final, non-unanimous verdict resulting in imprisonment if, after a reasonable period of deliberations, they are unable to agree. Defendant converts the Ramseur holding into a two-pronged requirement that the jury be (1) informed of the option of a non-unanimous verdict and (2) free to exercise that option. He argues that claim F.18 from his first PCR petition and the within claim each address only one prong of the requirement. We reject his contention that the first PCR petition raised a separate and distinct claim from that raised in the second PCR petition. The Court s concern in Ramseur was that coercive supplemental instructions . . . to a jury that has expressed its inability to agree would improperly influence the members to return a unanimous verdict. 106 N.J. at 313. In that case the jury had informed the trial court after a period of deliberations that it was unable to reach unanimity. The court responded with three separate supplemental charges that did not remind the jury of the option of a final non-unanimous verdict but rather stressed the importance of reaching a unanimous verdict. State v. Hunt, 115 N.J. 330, 382 (1989) (discussing the jury charge in Ramseur). In Hunt, the trial court concluded its charge to the jury by telling the members that they should try to reach an agreement. Ibid. In addition, despite communications from the jury suggesting concerns about a lack of unanimity, the court failed to remind the jury that it could fulfill its obligations by returning a final non-unanimous verdict. Ibid. Jurors in a capital sentencing trial must be instructed that non-unanimity is an option. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(f); Hunt, supra, 115 N.J. at 385; State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 123, 179-80 (1988); Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 312. Further, the instructions at sentencing must convey that non-unanimity is as acceptable a verdict as unanimity and that there is no preference for unanimity over non-unanimity. See Hunt, supra, 115 N.J. at 383-85. It is most important that the option of non-unanimity be made clear to the jurors because the Rules governing deliberations at sentencing differ from those governing the guilt-phase deliberations immediately preceding the sentencing phase. There, non-unanimity would result in a mistrial. The issue to be determined in this case is whether F.18 and the instant petition argue distinct aspects of the Ramseur requirement, or whether they both assert the same claim -- that the jury instructions failed to satisfy Ramseur and thereby denied defendant his constitutional rights. Implicit in the claim that the jury was not informed of the option of non-unanimity is that the jury was therefore not free to exercise that option -- the second requirement flows directly from the first. We find therefore that F.18 presented the same argument that Marshall presents here. Moreover, this Court adjudicated claim F.18 in Marshall III. 148 N.J. at 257. Our opinion in Marshall III exhaustively reviewed many of the 500 grounds for reversal raised by defendant at the same time that we summarily rejected without discussion many others that lacked merit. F.18 fell into the latter group of claims. For that reason, defendant is precluded from raising the claim of error alleged in this petition. The PCR trial court correctly granted the State s motion to dismiss, and we affirm. I have previously defined for you the term reasonable doubt, and I ll just instruct you again briefly with respect to that concept. A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible or imaginary doubt, because as you may well know, everything relating to human affairs or depending upon oral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty as to the existence of a fact which is present in your mind after you have given full and impartial consideration to all of the evidence. It may arise from the evidence itself or from a lack of evidence. For the purpose of this case, you may consider only what -- as to aggravating factors, whether the following aggravating factor has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; that is, that the defendant procured the commission of the offense by payment or promise of payment of anything of value. The evidence at the trial, which is relevant to the aggravating and mitigating factors, shall be considered by you without the necessity of re-introducing that evidence at this proceeding. The State has the burden of convincing you beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factor has been proven. If you re not so convinced, the defendant will not receive the death penalty, but will be sentenced by the Court to a term of imprisonment, which I will mention to you shortly. With respect to mitigating factors, you do not have to be convinced of their existence. That is to say, the defendant doesn t have the burden of establishing the mitigating factors. If any evidence has been presented with respect to mitigating factors, then you are bound by the law to consider it and weigh it against any aggravating factor that you have found present. Of course, with respect to both aggravating and mitigating factors, you are the sole judges of the truth of the evidence presented. Should you find that this aggravating factor alleged has been proven and that evidence of at least one mitigating factor is present, you must then weigh the aggravating and the mitigating factors, and the defendant will be sentenced to death only if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating exists and outweighs the mitigating factors, and all of the mitigating factors, beyond a reasonable doubt. If you reach the point in your deliberations where you re weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, it s important for you to understand that this is not a mechanical process. It doesn t necessarily or simply depend upon the number of factors on each side. It does depend on your careful and considered judgment as to whether or not the aggravating factor is of such gravity, seriousness, or weight, that, beyond a reasonable doubt, it outweighs all of the evidence as to mitigating factors. If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factor or factors outweigh -- aggravating factor, I should say, since there s only one alleged -- outweighs all mitigating factors, then the defendant will be sentenced to death by virtue of your verdict. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of an aggravating factor or not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that any aggravating factor which exists outweighs all mitigating factors, then the defendant will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of thirty years to life, with no parole possible for at least thirty years. Your verdict must be unanimous. You must all agree as to the existence or nonexistence or the alleged aggravating factor. However, as to mitigating factors, if any one or more of you find such exists, you should check yes as to that mitigating factor on the verdict sheet that you receive. If, after careful, conscientious and thorough deliberations, you re unable to agree upon your finding and your verdict, then you should report that to me. If in my opinion, further deliberations will not result in a unanimous agreement on the verdict, then I will impose the appropriate penalty, which will be the sentence of imprisonment to which I just referred. I don t want to place any greater burden upon you than exists by virtue of the law. You have a difficult task. However, you accepted this responsibility as public citizens pursuant to the oath that was administered to you. There s nothing peculiarly different than the way a jury is to consider proof in any criminal case or any criminal proceeding from that in which all reasonable persons treat any questions, depending upon evidence presented to them. You re expected to use your good sense, consider the evidence for only the purpose for which it has been admitted, and give it a fair and reasonable construction in the light of your common knowledge of the natural tendencies and inclinations of human beings. Since this is a criminal matter, of course, your verdicts, except with respect to the existence of mitigating factors, as I said before, must be unanimous. All twelve jurors deliberating must agree, and you should decide the case without any bias or prejudice. In order to assist you during your deliberations, I ve prepared for you a verdict form that you can complete. I think it is self-explanatory. There are three places on the form for the foreperson to sign, and that will be you, please, if you will sign it ultimately at the appropriate place, ma am. Just one thing with the form. It is self-explanatory, I think, as I said before. However, under mitigating factors, factor number one, The defendant has no history of criminal activity, you must complete that yes, because it s been stipulated and agreed that he has no history of criminal activity. Other than that, I think the form is self-explanatory and you can complete it. Defendant claims that those instructions repeatedly and erroneously emphasized that the jury should return a unanimous verdict, thereby rendering the jurors far less free to return a non-unanimous verdict than a unanimous one. Defendant points out that first, the trial court said, Your verdict must be unanimous. Then, the trial court told the jury, If in my opinion, further deliberations will not result in a unanimous agreement on the verdict, then I will impose the appropriate penalty. And, finally, the court stated, Since this is a criminal matter, of course, your verdicts, except with respect to the existence of mitigating factors . . . must be unanimous. All twelve jurors deliberating must agree. Defendant also points to a statement made by the court after the jury returned its verdict as evidence of the court s misunderstanding of the law applicable to the sentencing portion of a capital trial: I m going to ask each of you one by one if that is the way you voted, just to be sure that the verdict is unanimous, as required by law. The State responds that the trial court s instructions adequately explained that the jury could return a non-unanimous verdict and properly instructed the jurors that they had to agree unanimously in order to find the existence of the aggravating factor but did not have to agree to establish the mitigating factors. The State points out that after properly explaining the law in respect of aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court instructed the jury about unanimity in relation to its final determination: If, after careful, conscientious and thorough deliberations, you re unable to agree upon your finding and your verdict, then you should report that to me. If in my opinion, further deliberations will not result in a unanimous agreement on the verdict, then I will impose the appropriate penalty, which will be the sentence of imprisonment to which I just referred. Those instructions, in the State s view, informed the jury that if it was unable to agree unanimously about defendant s sentence, the court would sentence him to a term of imprisonment. The State further argues that defendant s reliance on Ramseur and Hunt is inapposite, because the jury never indicated that it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, as had the juries in those two cases, so the trial court never was called on to re-instruct the members. In response to defendant s reliance on the statement made by the trial court after the jury returned its verdict, the State suggests that the statement is irrelevant to defendant s argument and, in fact, proper. The trial court stated, I m going to ask each of you one by one if that is the way you voted, just to be sure that the verdict is unanimous, as required by law. The State contends that because this statement was made after the jury returned its verdict, it has no bearing on defendant s claim that the jury instructions improperly emphasized the need for a unanimous verdict. In any event, because a verdict imposing the death penalty does have to be unanimous, the statement was manifestly proper. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT O. MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant. LONG, J., dissenting. I When death is on the table, as it is in this case, courts should never stand on ceremony. Thus, unlike the majority, I would relax the time bar of Rule 3:22-12. Not only is a significant liberty interest at stake, State v. Mitchell, 126 N.J. 565, 580 (1992), but life itself. Although the efficient administration of justice requires enforcement of procedural bars, certain interests transcend finality and efficiency. Among those concerns, life is paramount. Any potential prejudice to the State in having to retry Marshall s penalty phase cannot trump his interest in life. II Separate and apart from my opposition to the application of any procedural preclusion to a post-conviction relief petition in a capital case, I believe that the majority s reliance on Rule 3:22-5 to bar Marshall s claim is misplaced. We explained in State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 149 (1997) (Marshall III) (quoting State v. Bontempo, 170 N.J. Super. 220, 234 (Law Div. 1979)), that a claim is procedurally barred under Rule 3:22-5 only if the issue raised is identical or substantially equivalent to that adjudicated previously. Relying on that notion, the majority holds that the issue before us has already been decided, citing argument F.18 in Marshall s first post-conviction relief petition. As noted, F.18 was one of more than 500 points raised in that petition. To say that its presentation was perfunctory is an understatement. Citing excerpts from the penalty phase jury instruction, F.18 stated only: The defendant was denied his right to fundamental fairness, due process and his right to a fair and reliable penalty trial, and was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of Article I, Paragraphs 1, 10 and 12 of the New Jersey Constitution, and the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in that the trial court s penalty phase instructions inadequately explained that a non-unanimous verdict was acceptable. When Marshall s first petition was denied, his appellate counsel reduced F.18 even further: The trial court s penalty phase instructions inadequately explained that a non-unanimous verdict was acceptable. Because F.18 and the appellate brief were so cursory, our treatment of them in the Marshall III opinion was as summary as the claim itself. The Court simply dismissed all of Marshall s penalty-phase jury instruction arguments in a single sentence: We reject those claims on the merits on the same basis that we reject the claims of penalty-phase ineffectiveness relating to trial counsel s failure to request specific instructions in the penalty phase. NO. A-32 SEPTEMBER TERM 2001 ON APPEAL FROM Appellate Division, Superior Court STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT O. MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED July 30, 2002 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Chief Justice Poritz CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY Justice Long