Opinion ID: 4533776
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A. killed.

Text: The Attorney General likewise argues that an appellate court must respect the role of the jury in evaluating evidence and that the evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to the State. The Attorney General argues that State v. Perez, 177 N.J. 540 (2003), is directly on point, and urges the court to “consider defendant’s words and acts in tandem as part of the whole picture from which the jury could have drawn its inferences.” (quoting Perez, 177 N.J. at 554). In the Attorney General’s view, the recorded conversations were sufficient to permit the jury to infer that it was more probable than not that defendant made demands on his cohorts. Defendant argues these recorded phone calls cannot establish a substantial step toward murder because no one was solicited to commit a crime, no plan was devised, and no course of action was set in motion. He 13 posits the Appellate Division’s decision should be affirmed because it properly applied the body of law regarding criminal attempt, which requires acts beyond mere solicitation. Defendant argues that since the adoption of the criminal code, our courts have interpreted solicitation, in the context of attempt, to require both the solicitation and acts in furtherance of th e criminal purpose. Defendant asserts the Appellate Division properly found that defendant’s words fell short of proving a substantial step. Defendant argues that unlike Perez, where the defendant’s words were used to give meaning to his actions, here, the State is using his words to establish that the criminal act itself took place at some point in the past. The ACDL similarly argues that mere wishes and frustrations are insufficient to demonstrate that defendant took a substantial step to cause A.A.’s death. Quoting from State v. Belliard, 415 N.J. Super. 51, 73 (App. Div. 2010), the ACDL asserts such a step “must be substantial and not just a very remote preparatory act, and must show that the accused has a firmness of criminal purpose.” The ACDL contends that defendant’s statements in the recorded phone calls cannot constitute a substantial step toward murder because none of those statements suggest there was any command, quid pro quo, or payment directing A.A.’s murder. 14