Opinion ID: 1476426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Attempted-Murder Instruction

Text: At the charge conference, defense counsel requested that the trial court instruct the jury on attempted murder. The trial court refused, concluding that the evidence presented at trial provided no support for the notion that defendant attempted, but failed, to murder Rosenthal. The court, however, did charge the jury on two other lesser included offenses: manslaughter and reckless manslaughter. Defendant argues that the alleged sightings of Rosenthal provided a rational basis for the jury to infer that Rosenthal survived defendant's attack. He argues that, by failing to instruct the jury on attempted murder, the court erroneously adopted only the State's theory of the case in derogation of defendant's theory that Rosenthal remained alive after the date of the alleged murder. Furthermore, he contends that the lack of an attempted-murder instruction coerced the jury into an all or nothing verdict, forcing the panel to convict defendant of murder or acquit him altogether. We disagree. A defendant is entitled to a charge on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence [t]o give full force to the reasonable doubt standard and to preserve defendants' rights to have the jury consider all defenses. State v. Short, 131 N.J. 47, 53, 618 A. 2d 316 (1993). However, trial courts shall not charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a rational basis for a verdict convicting the defendant of the included offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8e. In order to justify a lesser included offense instruction, a rational basis must exist in the evidence for a jury to acquit the defendant of the greater offense as well as to convict the defendant of the lesser, unindicted offense. State v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 396, 799 A. 2d 477 (2002). Although the standard is a low one, sheer speculation does not constitute a rational basis. State v. Brent, 137 N.J. 107, 118, 644 A. 2d 583 (1994). This Court has consistently held that all forms of homicide rationally supported by the evidence, whether they be lesser-included or alternative offenses, should be placed before the jury. State v. Purnell, 126 N.J. 518, 530, 601 A. 2d 175 (1992). Attempted murder is an included offense of homicide. N.J.S.A. 2c:1-8d(2). As we have noted, attempted murder requires greater culpability than murder itself: Although an actor may be guilty of murder if he or she intended to kill or was practically certain that his or her actions would cause or would be likely to cause death, the actor is guilty of attempted murder only if he or she actually intended the result, namely, death, to occur. [ State v. Rhett, 127 N.J. 3, 7, 601 A. 2d 689 (1992).] Drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced at trial, we conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on attempted murder. In short, we find no rational basis to convict defendant of attempted murder and acquit him of knowing or purposeful murder. Defendant's statements constitute the only evidence admitted at trial regarding his attack on Rosenthal and support no inference that Rosenthal survived the assault and then disappeared. No evidence adduced at trial supported a theory that defendant actually attempted, but failed, to kill Rosenthal. The evidence presented at trial permitted the jury to draw one of two conclusions: defendant killed Rosenthal as he described in his statements or, alternatively, defendant's confessions were false and Rosenthal disappeared for some other reason. As the trial court recognized, if the jury accepted defendant's evidence that Rosenthal was alive after February 23, 1991, defendant would not have been found guilty of anything, given the proofs presented at this trial. We also reject defendant's argument that the lack of an attempted-murder instruction coerced the jury into finding defendant guilty of a crime he did not commit. In State v. Muniz, we recognized the injustice of an `all-or-nothing' presentation of a criminal offense to a jury ... with respect to a defendant who may in fact be guilty of only a lesser offense that is not charged.... 118 N.J. 319, 327, 571 A. 2d 948 (1990). In this case, however, the trial court instructed the jury on felony murder, aggravated manslaughter, and reckless manslaughter. The instructions properly informed the jury of all lesser offenses rationally supported by the evidence and, in doing so, avoided the coerciveness of an all or nothing charge.