Opinion ID: 2344370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: ESCAPE DETECTION AGGRAVATING FACTOR N.J.S.A. 2C:11c(4)(f).

Text: Defendant next contends that the escape detection aggravating factor is unconstitutionally vague and further asserts that it was not supported in the evidence in this case. We reject both contentions. N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(f) provides that among the aggravating factors the jury can consider is whether [t]he murder was committed for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trial, punishment or confinement for another offense committed by the defendant or another[.] We have twice considered  and rejected  the claim that this aggravating factor is either unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. State v. Papasavvas (I), 163 N.J. 565, 619, 751 A. 2d 40 (2000); State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 226, 699 A. 2d 596 (1997). No different result obtains here. We also reject defendant's contention that the jury's unanimous finding of the escape detection factor was not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, among the aggravating factors alleged by the State were that the separate murder of each of Richard Hazard and Shirley Hazard was committed for the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trial, punishment, or confinement, for another offense committed by defendant. Once the State concluded its case-in-chief in respect of the aggravating factors, including the escape detection aggravating factor, defendant moved to dismiss them, alleging that the State had failed to present evidence sufficient to support them. The trial court denied defendant's motion. Applying the long-observed standard concerning the sufficiency of the State's evidence, that is, whether, viewing the State's evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as all of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt[,] State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 459, 236 A. 2d 385 (1967) (citing State v. Fiorello, 36 N.J. 80, 90-91, 174 A. 2d 900 (1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 967, 82 S.Ct. 439, 7 L.Ed. 2d 396 (1962)), the trial court recounted several items of evidence adduced by the State and noted that [u]nder the totality of the circumstances there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to allow a fact finder to resolve this issue. When defendant renewed his motion at the close of the State's rebuttal evidence, the trial court again denied that application, noting that [t]here's been no material change, as I recall the proofs and the status of proofs between the time that that motion was originally made as the State's direct case has been presented and now, and as a consequence, the determination now is and will be the same and for the reasons which I've given at the time applying the State versus Reyes criteria a reasonable jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt  . . . . Backing up to State versus Reyes, giving to the State the benefit of the doubt on all proofs and legitimate inferences that can be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Aggravating Factor has been proven. So I deny the application. Our independent review of the proofs adduced by the State in respect of the escape detection factor, whether direct, circumstantial or inferential, leads us to conclude that the rationale, analysis and conclusions of the trial court are unassailable: the State's evidence in its entirety, together with all reasonable inferences therefore, was more than sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant committed the murders of Richard and Shirley Hazard with the purpose of escaping detection, apprehension, trial, punishment or confinement for another offense committed by the defendant[.] N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(f). We therefore reject defendant's challenges to the application of the escape detection aggravating factor to his death penalty phase trial.