Opinion ID: 2344370
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cooperation with authorities.

Text: Defendant submits that he cooperated with authorities. Although he did not turn himself in, he disingenuously suggests that any possibility of his doing so was essentially foreclosed by his arrest early in the morning following the crime. He also contends that, once in custody, he virtually immediately gave a statement in which he admitted participation in the crimes, albeit disguising the extent of his participation. By way of explanation, he argues that it is hardly unique that a defendant would admit the depth of his involvement in a particularly severe crime in stages. As to defendant's statements implicating an alleged accomplice, defendant maintains that it has remained his position throughout that his alleged accomplice was involved. The State stresses that [s]ince the moment defendant was [arrested], he has continuously attempted to minimize his responsibility and thwart the investigation. It suggests that it was the overwhelming evidence against him, `rather than any pang of conscience,' [that] prompted defendant's incomplete admissions. (quoting State v. Timmendequas (II), supra, 168 N.J. at 44, 773 A. 2d 18). Although we credit defendant with the statements he provided to the police, his request that his mother cooperate with the authorities, and his unconditional plea to all of the crimes for which he stood charged, the degree to which that credit affects the calculation of his character is slight because each such form of cooperation was designed to better his own plight, and not out of any sense of correctness.