Opinion ID: 1907203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comparison Group

Text: The AOC characterizes the various death-eligible cases on the basis of the aggravating factors present in those cases. The similar cases to be examined in proportionality review are then selected on the basis of the aggravating factors present in defendant's case. DiFrisco III, supra, 142 N.J. at 185, 662 A. 2d 442 (citing Martini II, supra, 139 N.J. at 49, 651 A. 2d 949). There are thirteen basic categories, [15] each of which contains two to seven subcategories. Here, the penalty-phase jury found that the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt three statutory aggravating factors: N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(a) (prior murder); N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(f) (escape detection); and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(4)(g) (felony murder). The AOC therefore coded defendant's case as a B, or a murder by a defendant with a prior murder conviction. Further, the AOC placed Loftin's case in the B(1) subcategory [16] because, in addition to the prior murder conviction, the case presented two other aggravating circumstances. Loftin Report, tbl.7A. Defendant argues that his case should be compared not only to all death-eligible B(1) cases, but also to all other death-eligible B cases and to all death-eligible A, multiple-murder, cases in which the defendant killed during the course of a robbery. Defendant asserts that certain A cases are similar to his case in that all A defendants also killed more than one person and some committed murders in the course of a robbery. The State argues that defendant's case should be compared only to other prior murder cases, as in the proportionality review in Bey IV, supra, 137 N.J. at 367, 645 A. 2d 685, another case involving a prior murderer. Defendant's essential attribute is his prior murder conviction. Because of the exceedingly small number of cases in the B(1) subcategory, DiFrisco III, supra, 142 N.J. at 170, 662 A. 2d 442, we will compare defendant's case to all death-eligible cases in the B, or prior murder, category. We will not, however, compare defendant's case, as he has proposed, to certain category A casesmurders involving multiple victims where the murders were committed in the course of a robbery. We defer generally to the AOC's expertise, and particularly to its unique assignment of defendants to only one comparison category. Id. at 167, 662 A. 2d 442. In this case, the AOC designated defendant's case a B, or prior murder, case; we see no compelling reason to disagree with this designation or to deviate from it by including in defendant's comparison group certain of the A, or multiple-murder, cases. Loftin's comparison group thus consists of sixteen defendants: George Booker, John Fauntenberry, Richard Feaster, James Koedatich, Marko Bey, Richard Biegenwald, Bryan Coyle, Samuel Erazo, William Godette, Frank Pennington, Braynard Purnell, Thomas Ramseur, Carlos Vasquez, Jihad Muhammed, Alberto Nieves, and Thomas Williams. We glean the facts of these comparison cases from opinions previously published by this Court and from the AOC's Detailed Narrative Summaries.