Opinion ID: 2257779
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Allegations of Error in the Charge

Text: Defendant argues that the court failed to provide the jury with the option of convicting defendant on a unified theory of murder. Such an option, defendant claims, would have permitted the jurors to disagree on a single theory of culpability, thereby resulting in a non-death-eligible conviction. Defendant also contends that the court's sequential instruction on purposeful-or-knowing murder and felony murder was reversible error. Consistent with Cooper, supra, 151 N.J. at 356-70, 700 A. 2d 306, we reject both of these claims. Due to the difference in the requirements of the mental state for purposeful-or-knowing murder as distinguished from felony murder, Cooper concluded that the Legislature did not intend to create a unified crime of murder, id. at 360, 700 A. 2d 306, and that a unified murder option would cause extraordinary confusion in the charge. Id. at 363, 700 A. 2d 306. Thus, the trial court did not err in failing to charge the jury on the unified murder theory. For the same reason, the court did not err in its sequential charge. Id. at 369-70, 700 A. 2d 306. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it had to find defendant's confessions credible beyond a reasonable doubt and by noting the State's claim that defendant had been advised of his Miranda rights on several occasions. Defendant's arguments are without merit. Under State v. Hampton, 61 N.J. 250, 294 A. 2d 23 (1972), the court is required to instruct the jury to disregard defendant's statements if they find, after considering the evidence, the statements to be untrue. Id. at 272, 294 A. 2d 23; see also N.J.R.E. 104(c) (codifying the Hampton rule). The court, however, was under no duty to instruct the jury that it must find defendant's statements credible beyond a reasonable doubt. Chew, supra, 150 N.J. at 82-83, 695 A. 2d 1301. State v. Kociolek, 23 N.J. 400, 129 A. 2d 417 (1957), directs that the court must instruct the jury of the inherent weakness of oral statements. Id. at 421, 129 A. 2d 417. In so doing, the court is permitted to comment on the evidence. State v. Laws, 50 N.J. 159, 177, 233 A. 2d 633 (1967). Here, in addition to discussing the purported Miranda warnings, the court noted defendant's allegation that the tapes of his confessions were doctored. The court's comments on the evidence were balanced and served to enhance, rather than detract from, the adequacy of the charge.