Opinion ID: 1959182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count Eight of the Indictment

Text: Count Eight of the Indictment reads as follows: The Grand Jurors of the State of New Jersey, for the County of Essex, upon their oath present that ANTHONY TYRONE McDOUGALD on the 19th day of August, 1984 at the City of Newark in the County of Essex ... did prevent by means of force Walter Bass or Maria Bass from performing an act or from providing information or testimony which might aid in his discovery or apprehension or in the lodging of a charge of sexual assault or burglary against him contrary to the provisions of N.J.S. 2C:29-3b(2)(3), a crime of the Third Degree.... Defendant argues that Count Eight charged him with two distinct offenses, violating his due-process right to notice of the charges against him and depriving him of the right, under the State Constitution, to indictment by a grand jury. Defendant did not assert that issue below. Rule 3:10-2 mandates that with certain specified exceptions, objections to the indictment be made before trial or else waived. In State v. DelFino, 100 N.J. 154, 160, 495 A. 2d 60 (1985), we stated that under Rule 3:10-2 [t]he failure of timely assertion, even of constitutional rights, may result in [] a waiver. State v. McKnight, 52 N.J. 35, 48 [243 A. 2d 240] (1968). What constitutes good cause for delay will depend upon the circumstances.    Moreover, the merits of the underlying assertion must be persuasive if an untimely challenge is to be otherwise allowed for good cause. [ Id. at 160-61, 495 A. 2d 60]. Defendant has not proposed any good cause for his delay. Because that challenge does not concern directly defendant's capital conviction, we are less willing to suspend procedural bars absent good cause. In addition defendant's underlying assertion is unpersuasive. Count Eight charged the defendant under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b(2), (3) which criminalizes a variety of actions intended to Hinder Apprehension or Prosecution. See N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3. This charge relates to McDougald's alleged motive to kill the Basses in order to preclude them from pursuing charges against him for statutory rape. Although we have previously stated that separate and distinct offenses cannot be charged in the same count of an indictment, State v. New Jersey Trade Waste Ass'n, 96 N.J. 8, 21, 472 A. 2d 1050 (1984), we have also allowed counts to embrace more than one issue when the statute in question addresses several things disjunctively. State v. Pirone, 78 N.J. Super. 158, 160-61, 188 A. 2d 45 (App. Div. 1963). In this case, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3 proscribes the hindering of prosecution in general, and lists in the disjunctive various specific types of conduct toward this end that are criminal. Thus we are not convinced that Count Eight is duplicitous. Defendant also argues that the State failed to prove Count Eight beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of his due-process rights. We must determine here whether viewing the State's evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all 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. Palacio, 111 N.J. 543, 550, 545 A. 2d 764 (1988) (quoting State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 459, 236 A. 2d 385 (1967)).] Throughout the trial there were numerous references to McDougald's belief that the Basses wanted him prosecuted for statutory rape and burglary charges. Marilyn Howard, Bernice Simmons, and Antoinette James all testified to defendant's statements that the Basses had pressed rape charges against him. Furthermore, the jury heard from defendant's own confession that he had repeatedly asked Walter Bass, before killing him, why was they trying to hurt me ... why, why [?] We believe that this evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that McDougald killed the Basses in order to avoid prosecution for other crimes. Thus we reject defendant's argument that the State failed to prove Count Eight beyond a reasonable doubt.