Opinion ID: 2358269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Denial of Equal Protection

Text: Defendant contends that the sentencing scheme of N.J.S.A. 2A:113-3, 4 has the effect of separating persons who have committed felony murder into two classes  those who go to trial and those who plead non vult  and of treating the former class differently and discriminatorily as to punishment without a compelling state justification for the difference in treatment. This is urged to constitute an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws. The State first counters with two preliminary responses: (1) that those indictees who plead non vult are pleading to a different crime from that of which one is convicted where, after trial, the jury returns a verdict of first-degree murder; (2) that the statute does not create differently treated classes, but, rather, merely offers all such indictees a choice, and that it is the defendant who places himself in one class or the other based upon his choice. We regard the second response as more semantic than substantive, and pass it. The first response is that in legal contemplation the crime identified by a conviction of first degree murder is different from the undifferentiated crime of murder, as stated in the formal indictment, which will support convictions of first or second degree murder or manslaughter. See State v. Sullivan, 43 N.J. 209, 241-247 (1964). Therefore, goes the argument, acceptance of a non vult plea constitutes conviction of a different crime from first degree murder and may be treated differently. We do not accept the latter position as a fully satisfactory basis for meeting the defendant's argument, which, it seems to us, can and should be dealt with more directly. We therefore pass to the State's defense of the statute on grounds more related to the merits of the equal protection attack. In the first place, we concur in the State's rejection of defendant's contention that the issue calls for application of the more exacting of the two tests for deciding an equal protection question  that of requiring the demonstration of a compelling state interest for the classification, as where suspect categories or fundamental rights are involved. See Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 342, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed. 2d 600 (1969); State v. Chambers, 63 N.J. 287, 296 (1973); State v. Costello, 59 N.J. 334, 345-346 (1971) (both of the latter cases involving penological classification based on the suspect category of sex). In this State, however, where the Legislature has created classifications of offenders for purposes of fixing penalty, the courts have continued (absent use of suspect criteria such as race or sex) to apply the traditional rational relationship test. State v. Fearick, 69 N.J. 32, 38 (1976); State v. Smith, 58 N.J. 202, 206-207 (1971). State in Interest of K.V.N., 116 N.J. Super. 580, 589 (App. Div. 1971), aff'd o.b. 60 N.J. 517 (1972). These cases stand for the proposition that in the area of classification of criminal or penal offenders for purposes of penalty or punishment the Legislature may provide for differences of treatment so long as there is some rational connection between the classification and a proper legislative purpose. If, therefore, defendant is right in asserting that murder indictees who contest guilt by trial and are convicted of first degree murder and those whose non vult pleas are accepted by the court are constituted separate classes by the statute, the question as to whether that classification, in the light of the different minimum punishments prescribed for each class is valid, becomes an inquiry as to whether there is a proper legislative purpose to which the classification is rationally related. This inquiry, we are clear, must be resolved in the affirmative. There are several such purposes. The first is the humane and rehabilitative one of ameliorating the rigor of life imprisonment for those offenders who are willing to acknowledge their crime. State v. Poteet, 61 N.J. 493, 496 (1972); State v. Forcella, supra (52 N.J. at 275, 299-300). Other such purposes are fully developed in Part I of this opinion where they are cited to demonstrate that any encouragement in our statutory scheme to murder indictees to plead non vult is needed and not unnecessary, within Fifth Amendment criteria and considerations. These purposes include the facilitation of plea negotiations in homicide cases, necessary to achieve flexibility and efficiency as well as justice in criminal justice administration; the conservation of scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources for those cases which properly require trial; and the prompter imposition of punishment on acknowledged offenders. See Brady v. United States, supra 397 U.S. at 752, 90 S.Ct. 1463. All of the foregoing presumptive legislative purposes are, to say the least, rationally connected with the difference in potential minimum penalties respectively imposable upon conviction of first degree murder and upon acceptance by the court of a non vult plea to a charge of murder. [10] That such purposes, arguably, could be served more wisely were there a more flexible range of punishments on conviction for first degree murder than the life imprisonment now mandated is irrelevant, for equal protection purposes. The Legislature is not required to formulate the plan that seems most rational or sound to the court. It is sufficient if any rational basis relevant to a proper purpose underlies the classification and the attendant treatment of the classes affected. State v. Smith, 58 N.J. 202, 206-207 (1971); State v. DeStasio, 49 N.J. 247, 260 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 830, 88 S.Ct. 96, 19 L.Ed. 2d 89 (1967); State v. Wingler, 25 N.J. 161, 175-176 (1957). We conclude the equal protection attack upon the statutory scheme is without merit. Judgment affirmed. SULLIVAN, J. (dissenting). I find myself unable to agree with the reasoning and conclusion in the majority opinion. Plainly stated, the statutory sentencing scheme before us provides that if a defendant who is indicted for murder exercises his right to stand trial by jury and is convicted of murder in the first degree he must receive a sentence of life imprisonment. However, if he pleads non vult to the same indictment, he becomes eligible to receive a sentence for any term of years not exceeding 30 years and even have such sentence suspended. N.J.S.A. 2A:168-1. The majority opinion states that the issue is whether this scheme results in the needless encouragement of guilty pleas. It is that in part, but of equal importance, here it penalized a defendant who exercised his right to stand trial. For that he had a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him. I agree with the late Chief Justice Weintraub that such a sentencing scheme would and does present a Jackson -type difficulty [1] in that one who stood trial would receive a life sentence for first-degree murder while a defendant whose non vult plea was accepted could receive a sentence for a term of years. State v. Forcella, 52 N.J. 263, 282 (1968). Various alternatives would be constitutionally permissible. One would be to abolish the non vult plea to the indictment and instead provide that a defendant would not be permitted to plead guilty to murder in the first degree but only to second degree murder. Also, the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for first degree murder could be changed so as to vest discretion in the sentencing judge. This latter solution would appear to be the more desirable because mandatory sentences, while they have been held to pass constitutional muster, bar a sentencing judge from taking into account facts and circumstances which otherwise might properly be relevant in fixing sentence. The majority opinion holds that the separate classification for sentencing purposes of those who plead non vult to murder and those who choose to stand trial has a rational purpose akin to our system of plea negotiations. I see a substantial difference. Plea negotiations as noted in the majority opinion legitimately take into account a guilty defendant's willingness to admit such guilt and thereby conserve judicial and prosecutorial resources. A sentencing judge, in his discretion, may take such a plea of guilt into consideration in fixing the degree of punishment. However, a sentencing scheme which presents the threat of penalizing a defendant because he pleads not guilty and demands a jury trial, is not the same thing. I am concerned about a defendant who pleads non vult to an indictment for murder in order to avoid the risk of a mandatory life sentence if he stands trial. I am equally concerned about a defendant who exercises his constitutional right to stand trial on the same indictment and because he does so, as here, now faces a mandatory life sentence. To me, in addition to presenting a Jackson -type difficulty, this involves a denial of equal protection of the laws. I would invalidate the mandatory life sentence provision of the statute, vacate the life sentence imposed on defendant and remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing with the trial judge to exercise such discretion as the circumstances warrant. PASHMAN, J., dissenting. The majority today holds that a defendant may be denied the opportunity to receive a reduced sentence solely because he exercised his constitutional right to have his guilt determined by a jury of his peers. It now holds that a person who stands trial and is convicted will receive a mandatory life sentence even though that same individual might have been eligible for a suspended sentence if he had admitted his guilt and waived his rights. I believe that this decision calls into question some of our most basic constitutional guarantees, including a person's right to a jury trial, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 20 L.Ed. 2d 491 (1968), to confront one's accusers, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed. 2d 923 (1965), to present witnesses in one's defense, Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1019 (1967), to remain silent, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed. 2d 653 (1964), and to be convicted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed. 2d 368 (1970). The price tag which today's decision places on the exercise of such rights stands in stark contrast to the protections which they have traditionally enjoyed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.