Opinion ID: 1959985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unanimity Requirement for Aggravating Factors

Text: Defendant claims here, for the first time; that his death sentence must be reversed because the trial court did not properly instruct the jury that for its verdict to indicate the existence of an aggravating factor, all twelve jurors must unanimously concur in the existence of that factor. Defendant maintains that the instructions suggested that defendant could be put to death if, for example, six of the jurors found one of the aggravating factors and the remaining six jurors found the other aggravating factor. The State disputes defendant's characterization of the court's charge, arguing that it was clearly consistent with the statute. Moreover, the State maintains that any error was clearly harmless, considering the verdict sheet and the court's poll of the jury, both of which establish that the jury unanimously found the murder-for-hire factor. We agree with the State on both counts. We have no doubt that the jurors understood that the death-penalty statute required a unanimous jury finding to establish the existence of an aggravating factor. Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 159, 548 A. 2d 887. With respect to this issue, the trial court charged the jury: The evidence relating to mitigating factors should be fully discussed by the jury to the extent reasonably possible. You should by reason attempt to reach an agreement on a question whether a particular factor does or does not exist. However the law does not require unanimity with respect to the finding of mitigating factors. Furthermore, each juror must individually determine whether each mitigating factor exists and each juror must individually decide whether the aggravating factor or factors unanimously found outweigh the mitigating factor or factors that the jury has found to be present .... If you individually and unanimously find that the State has proven one or more aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and beyond a reasonable doubt such factor or factors outweigh the mitigating factor or factors that you or more of you found to exist, then the punishment shall be death. After a full discussion you cannot reach a unanimous verdict on the question of punishment as to the murder, then in that case the sentence will be imprisonment for the term of years previously described. [Emphasis added.] The verdict sheet also clearly set forth the jurors' choices. The relevant portion of the verdict sheet reads as follows: 1. Aggravating Factors Do you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the following aggravating factors exist: a. [Murder-for-hire] NO YES (0) (12) b. [Murder to escape detection] NO YES (1) (11) [1] IF YOU HAVE FOUND THAT NONE OF THE AGGRAVATING FACTORS WERE PRESENT, THE DELIBERATION IS COMPLETE AND THE PUNISHMENT SHALL BE IMPRISONMENT BETWEEN YEARS WITHOUT PAROLE AND LIFE. IF YOU HAVE UNANIMOUSLY FOUND THAT ONE OR MORE AGGRAVATING FACTORS WERE PRESENT, GO TO NUMBER 2 BELOW.) 2. Mitigating Factors Do any of you find that any of the following exist as mitigating factors: (you should note that there is no burden of proof as to mitigating factors. They need only be established by reliable evidence. Unanimity is not required.) (IF YOU ARE NOT UNANIMOUS ON A MITIGATING FACTOR BEING PRESENT OR ABSENT INDICATE THE NUMBER OF NO AND YES) VOTES.)         3. Decision of the Jury Indicate below one and only one, choice which is the decision of the jury. a. The jury is unanimously satisfied that any aggravating factor or factors proven to exist fail to outweigh the mitigating factor or factors. (The trial judge will sentence the defendant to at least 30 years imprisonment without parole.) ____ b. The jury is unanimously satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that any aggravating factor or factors proven to exist outweigh the mitigating factor or factors. (The trial judge will sentence the defendant to death.) ____ If you have unanimously found more than one factor present, then indicate as to each such factor whether it by itself outweighs the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt: AGGRAVATING FACTOR a NO ( ) YES (x) AGGRAVATING FACTOR b NO ( ) YES ( ) c. After due deliberation, the jury cannot unanimously agree upon punishment. (The trial judge will sentence the defendant to at least 30 years imprisonment without parole.) A jury charge must adequately set forth the elements of an offense in a way that explains the law to the jury in an understandable manner. Martini, supra, 131 N.J. at 271, 619 A. 2d 1208. In reviewing instructions to the jury, a court must not isolate the language challenged but must examine the remark in the context of the entire charge. Marshall, supra, 123 N.J. at 145, 586 A. 2d 85. The effect of the purportedly-erroneous charge must be evaluated in light of the totality of the circumstances. Ibid. The trial court's instructions clearly draw a distinction between mitigating factors concerning which the law does not require unanimity and aggravating factors that must be unanimously found. Read in conjunction with that clear distinction, the court's statement, If you individually and unanimously find that the State has proven one or more aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt ..., does not suggest that the twelve jurors did not have to agree that the same aggravating factor was present, so long as they all believed in the existence of some aggravating factor. In fact, the remainder of the sentence to which defendant points demonstrates that his interpretation is inconsistent with what the court said. Specifically, the trial court continued: and beyond a reasonable doubt such factor or factors outweigh the mitigating factor or factors ... then the punishment shall be death. (Emphasis added.) [S]uch factor or factors refers to the aggravating factor or factors unanimously found. We do not adopt defendant's tortured interpretation of the trial court's instructions. What is more important, the jury itself clearly did not construe the court's words as defendant does. To the contrary, they understood the law correctly: for an aggravating factor to exist, all twelve jurors must find that that factor exists. The completed verdict sheet evidences the jury's understanding of this principle as did the jurors' responses to the court's polling. Considering that defendant failed to object below to the court's charge, we strongly suspect that he too found nothing objectionable in it. Even assuming arguendo that the charge was in error, we find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.