Opinion ID: 2277244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Defendant's Conviction for Hindering Apprehension of Co-Defendant Thompson

Text: Count seven of the indictment charged defendant with hindering the apprehension or prosecution of another, namely, Thompson, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3a. At the close of the State's case, defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal on this count. The motion was denied, and defendant was subsequently convicted. The only evidence providing the basis for this charge came from Taylor, who described how defendant and Thompson returned to Thompson's apartment, removed their blood-stained clothes, and changed into Thompson's clothes, and together put their clothes and knives in trash bags. Taylor told the police that Thompson and defendant then disposed of the bags, but at trial she said it was she who had disposed of the bags. Defendant argues that Taylor's testimony establishes only that defendant acted to hinder his own apprehension and that it did not provide a sufficient basis for his conviction for hindering the apprehension or prosecution of Thompson. In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant inquiry is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brown, 80 N.J. 587, 591-92 (1979) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed. 2d 560, 573 (1979)). So constrained, we find that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant hindered the apprehension of Thompson.