Opinion ID: 2365094
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Prove Own-Conduct Murder

Text: Defendant asserts a fundamental claim of error. He contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered McLean and Mitchell by his own conduct, and therefore did not establish his eligibility for a capital sentence. Defendant points to the absence of direct evidence that any of the shots that killed either McLean or Mitchell were fired by defendant. The State's case relied exclusively on Emil's testimony, other evidence of a circumstantial nature retrieved at the scene of the shooting, and expert testimony. After the jury reached its verdict in the guilt phase, defendant moved to dismiss his capital murder conviction. We note that the own-conduct issue was a matter of concern to the trial court and that defendant's motion required the trial court to assess the sufficiency of the proofs. Nonetheless, after hearing oral argument on the motion, the court concluded that the circumstantial evidence presented by the State was sufficient to create a reasonable inference that defendant was present at the apartment, possessed a weapon, and acted by his own conduct in causing the deaths of McLean and Mitchell. Under the circumstances, the court found that it was reasonable for the jury to infer that defendant, who had a motive to kill, acted as a second gunman. We agree with that determination. A motion for judgment of acquittal is governed by Rule 3:18-1, which states: At the close of the State's case or after the evidence of all parties has been closed, the court shall, on defendant's motion or its own initiative, order the entry of a judgment of acquittal of one or more offenses charged in the indictment or accusation if the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction.