Court Opinion

ID: 9715815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:15:04.746855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:38.218870
License: Public Domain

*125CLIFFORD and SCHREIBER, JJ.,
dissenting.
We vote to affirm the judgment of conviction of rape. In its opinion the Appellate Division pointed out the following:
In its charge to the jury the trial court made general introductory remarks that emphasized the responsibility of the jury to determine the question of credibility. The court then gave the standard charge on rape as applicable to count one. During that charge, the court instructed the jury that if the victim consented to the act of sexual intercourse, there should be no conviction on count one. The jury was instructed that nonconsent was an essential element of the crime of rape and that consent, however reluctant, would negate the crime. The jury was further instructed that the victim’s submission to the act did not necessarily imply consent if it was the result of compelling force or fear. The jury was further instructed that if it found that the defendant’s will was overcome by fear, then the necessary element of nonconsent was present.
After having instructed the jury as to the legal elements of rape encompassed in count one, the trial court then proceeded to direct the jurors that they “must return a verdict of guilty on the second count”, contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The court below pointed out that whereas there is no objection to a court removing from the jury’s consideration an uncontroverted fact, even when that fact constitutes an element of the crime charged, State v. Mack, 131 N.J.Super. 542, 546 (App.Div.1974), nevertheless the direction to return a guilty verdict was erroneous. We agree. But the question here is whether that error should result in a reversal of the judgment of conviction for rape ultimately entered on the jury’s verdict. On that score the Appellate Division correctly analyzed the problem as follows:
The standard to be applied is whether the legal impropriety in the charge prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the defendant and possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result. State v. Lewis, 67 N.J. 47 (1975); State v. Melvin, 65 N.J. 1, 18-20 (1974); State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971); State v. Hock, 54 N.J. 526, 538 (1969), cert. den., 399 U.S. 930 [90 S.Ct. 2254, 26 L.Ed.2d 797] (1970). In connection therewith the entire charge must be reviewed in order to determine the overall effect. State v. Freeman, 64 N.J. 66, 69 (1973).
Our review of the charge to the jury indicates that the trial judge in his general introductory remarks to the jury properly outlined the responsibilities of the jury as well as the substantive elements of the first count. In his charge he clearly differentiated between the first and the second count. A reading of the charge indicates that on numerous occasions the court reiterated the essential *126elements of rape and emphasized that lack of consent was an essential element of such crime. The judge instructed the jury that if the victim consented to the act of sexual intercourse, there could be no conviction on count one. He instructed the jury that nonconsent was an essential element of the crime of rape and that consent, however reluctant, would negate that crime. He further instructed the jury that the victim’s submission to the act did not necessarily imply consent if it was the result of compelling force or fear. He also properly instructed the jury that if it found that the victim’s will was overcome by fear, the necessary element of nonconsent was present. During the course of charging the jury he carefully distinguished between the two counts. He informed the jury that his direction concerning count two referred to that count only and that the jury must find the elements of rape beyond a reasonable doubt before it could convict the defendant on count one. There is no reason to suspect that the jury did not comply with these instructions. State v. Bellucci, 165 N.J.Super. 294, 301 (App.Div.1979), mod., 81 N.J. 531 (1980).
A review of the totality of the charge indicates that in this case the directing of a verdict of guilty on count two did not possess a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result and did not prejudice defendant. A consideration of the record as a whole makes it clear that the evidence of defendant’s guilt and the lack of consent by the victim was clearly supported by substantial credible evidence, and therefore the error was harmless. State v. Ryan, 157 N.J.Super. 121, 127 (App.Div.1978).
Clearly defendant was not prejudiced by the erroneous segment of the charge because he was not sentenced on count two. It was inferentially merged with count one and the trial judge considered only count one at sentencing. Therefore, we find that there was not reversible error.
We would Affirm.
For reversal—Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices PASHMAN, HANDLER, POLLOCK and O’HERN—5.
For affirmance—Justices CLIFFORD and SCHREIBER—2.