Opinion ID: 2382857
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Contract-Murder Hitmen

Text: N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(d) makes one who commit[s] the murder as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt of anything of pecuniary value death eligible. In State v. DiFrisco, 118 N.J. 253, 571 A. 2d 914 (1990), we explored the question of whether society regards as more reprehensible the principal or the agent in a contract killing. Because of the close relationship between c(4)(d) and c(4)(e), one who procures the commission of the offense by payment or promise of payment of anything of pecuniary value, the Master includes hitman cases as factually comparable, and we agree. This contract-murder hitmen pool includes six cases. [5] The death-sentencing rate among the penalty-trial cases is .50 (2/4) and .33 (2/6) for all death-eligible hitman cases. Thus, the figures for the entire contract-murder pool are as follows: Penalty-Trial Eligible Universe Universe Including Marshall .43 (3/7) .30(3/10) Excluding Marshall .33 (2/6) .22(2/9) Among the five triggerman c(4)(d) cases in the proposed universe, four advanced to a penalty trial with the c(4)(d) factor charged: Melendez, Michael Rose, Clausell (death sentenced), and DiFrisco. Among those four cases the jury found the c(4)(d) factor present in three cases and imposed a death sentence in two. The Court vacated Clausell's death sentence on appeal and he was later sentenced on the non-capital murder charge. Clausell, supra, 121 N.J. at 307, 580 A. 2d 221. We vacated DiFrisco's sentence and he is awaiting disposition on the remand. DiFrisco, supra, 118 N.J. at 283, 571 A. 2d 914. The Marshall Report concludes that [t]his very high death-sentencing rate, albeit in a small sample of cases, produced in our principal penalty-trial analysis a large and statistically significant multiple regression coefficient for the 4d [hired killer] factor. Marshall Report, supra, at 23.