STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WALI WILLIAMS (15-02-0462, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2225-17T1
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WALI WILLIAMS, a/k/a WALI
ISHMAEL WILLIAMS, WAIL
WILLIAMS, TYRONE WILLIAMS,
TYRONE JOHNSON, TYRONE
THOMAS, TYRONE TELLER, and
TYRONE WATERMELON,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted September 18, 2019 – Decided October 7, 2019
Before Judges Whipple and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 15-02-0462.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Susan Brody, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the brief).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Matthew E.
Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting
Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Wali Williams appeals from an August 9, 2017, judgment of
conviction after a jury found him guilty of first-degree conspiracy to commit
murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and 2C:11-3(a). Defendant was sentenced to a twenty-
year term of imprisonment, subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole
ineligibility pursuant to the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2. We
reverse because the jury instructions constituted plain error.
In March 2014, Anthony Flowers found Kashira Stubbs's driver's license
on the ground of a convenience store. Flowers contacted Stubbs on Facebook
and offered to return her license for ten dollars. Stubbs agreed to meet Flowers
at the same store where the license was found and told defendant's brother of
her intentions.
Anthony asked his brother, Damon Rogers, to meet Stubbs. When Rogers
arrived at the store, he encountered defendant, who identified himself as
Stubbs's brother. Rogers gave defendant the license, and defendant grabbed
Rogers by the jacket, asked why he stole Stubbs's license and punched him in
the face. Rogers punched back and was able to break free and retreat into the
store. Defendant followed Rogers, told him not to return and let him go.
A-2225-17T1
2
Rogers went home to tell his brothers, Flowers and Quassim Fluker, what
had just happened. Flowers and Fluker immediately left to confront defendant.
As they approached the store, Fluker recognized defendant standing at the front
of a crowd of people. Flowers asked defendant why he had punched Rogers,
and defendant said it was because Rogers stole the license. Flowers punched
defendant, and, as they struggled, two men, one of whom was later identified as
Dennis Russell, stood in front of Fluker. Russell pulled out a handgun and
pointed it at Fluker. Fluker recalled defendant reach for his waistband but never
saw defendant remove a firearm.
Shots rang out, and Fluker realized he was shot in the abdomen. Fluker
was able to run home, where he found Rogers. Fluker told Rogers to locate
Flowers, and Rogers found him lying on the ground near the store. Flowers was
pronounced dead later that night from two gunshot wounds.
In February 2015, an Essex County grand jury returned an indictment
charging defendant, Laquan Dwight, and Russell with: first-degree conspiracy
to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a), second-degree
possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a), and
second-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b).
A-2225-17T1
3
Defendant was individually charged with first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-
3(a)(1).
A jury trial was held. During the jury charge, the trial judge gave the
following definition of conspiracy to commit murder:
1.) That the defendant agreed with another person or
persons that they or one or more of them would engage
in conduct which constitutes the crime of murder; and,
2.) That the defendant's purpose was to promote murder
or facilitate the commission of the crime of murder.
The trial judge explained the jury could not find defendant guilty of conspiracy
unless:
the state has . . . prove[n] beyond a reasonable doubt
that when [defendant] agreed, it was his conscious
object or purpose to promote it or make it easier to
commit the crime of murder. . . . It also makes no
difference what the person or persons with whom the
defendant actually conspired had in mind, so long as the
defendant believed that he was furthering the
commission of the crime of murder.
During jury deliberations, the foreperson submitted the following
clarification request: "Regarding conspiracy to commit murder, does this
include conspiracy when pertaining to someone conspiring to . . . do . . .
something else, i.e., conspiring to fight someone and murder is the final
outcome?"
A-2225-17T1
4
In response, the trial judge answered:
Now, in the charge that you have in the jury room, . . .
conspiracy to commit murder, it outlines certain
elements. And the elements are—and the state must
prove each beyond a reasonable doubt—(1) that the
defendant agreed with another person or persons that
they or one or more of them would engage in conduct
which constitutes the crime of murder; and . . . (2) that
the defendant's purpose was to promote or facilitate the
commission of the crime of murder.
So, the purpose of the conspiracy is to commit murder.
The purpose of the conspiracy, it's insufficient if it's to
promote a fistfight. So, the purpose, the object of the
conspiracy is to commit murder.
So, for . . . the defendant [] to be found guilty of
conspiracy, the conspiracy charged in the indictment
which is conspiracy to commit murder, the state has to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when he agreed,
it was his conscious object or purpose to promote or
make it easier to commit the crime of murder. And that
purpose can evolve during the course of the conspiracy.
Now, in determining what the purpose was, . . . the
nature of purpose or knowledge . . . with which
defendant acted toward Anthony Flowers is a question
of fact for you, the jury, to decide. . . . [P]urpose and
knowledge are conditions of the mind which cannot be
seen and can only be determined by inferences from
conduct, words or acts.
Further on, it is within your power to find that proof of
purpose or knowledge has been furnished beyond a
reasonable doubt by inferences that may arise from the
nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances.
Such things as the place where the acts occurred, the
A-2225-17T1
5
weapon used, the location, number and nature of
wounds inflicted, and all that was done and said by
defendant preceding, connected with, and immediately
succeeding the events leading to the death of Anthony
Flowers are among the circumstances to be considered.
So you may consider any alleged involvement of
[defendant] in a preceding fistfight in evaluating the
facts and circumstances that you consider as to whether
he was a member of a conspiracy to commit murder or
that he had the requisite state of mind.
[(Emphasis added).]
Defendant did not object to the trial judge's supplemental instructions.
Thereafter, the jury acquitted defendant of the murder and weapons possession
charges but found him guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
On appeal, defendant raises the following issues:
Point I
REVERSAL IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRIAL
JUDGE'S ERRONEOUS RESPONSE TO THE
JURY'S CONSPIRACY QUESTION WAS LIKELY
TO HAVE COMPROMISED THE VERDICT AS TO
THAT CHARGE. (Not Raised Below)
Point II
THE JUDGE'S CHARGE AND RECHARGE ON
CONSPIRACY WERE MISLEADING AS TO THE
PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OF THE ALLEGED
CONSPIRACY, NECESSITATING REVERSAL.
Point III
THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN CONSIDERING FOR
SENTENCING PURPOSES DEFENDANT'S 2003
A-2225-17T1
6
CONFESSION TO TWO HOMICIDES DESPITE THE
SUBSEQUENT DISMISSAL OF THOSE CHARGES.
Defendant argues the trial judge's inclusion of the phrase "And that
purpose can evolve during the course of the conspiracy" in response to the jury's
clarification request was erroneous and necessitates reversal of the jury's verdict.
In defendant's view, the jury was confused about whether they could find
defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit murder if he had only conspired to
engage in a fistfight but murder was the final result. The correct answer was
"no," which was how the trial judge initially responded. But, by seemingly using
the word "purpose" to refer to both the mental state defendant must have acted
with as well as the object of the conspiracy, defendant contends the trial judge
instructed the jury that the object of the conspiracy could "evolve" without a
contemporaneous finding of agreement among the co-conspirators. While we
cannot be sure how the jury interpreted the trial judge's supplemental instruction,
the risk that the jury convicted defendant of conspiracy to commit murder when
they only believed he conspired to instigate a fistfight is far too great to ignore.
For that reason, we reverse defendant's conviction and remand this case for a
new trial.
"[A]ppropriate and proper charges are essential for a fair trial." State v.
Baum, 224 N.J. 147, 158-59 (2016) (quoting State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 613
A-2225-17T1
7
(2004)). "The trial court must give 'a comprehensible explanation of the
questions that the jury must determine, including the law of the case applicable
to the facts that the jury may find.'" Id. at 159 (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J.
281, 287-88 (1981)). "Thus, the court has an 'independent duty . . . to ensure
that the jurors receive accurate instructions on the law as it pertains to the facts
and issues of each case, irrespective of the particular language suggested by
either party.'" Ibid. (quoting Reddish, 181 N.J. at 613). "Because proper jury
instructions are essential to a fair trial, 'erroneous instructions on material points
are presumed to' possess the capacity to unfairly prejudice the defendant." Ibid.
(quoting State v. Bunch, 180 N.J. 534, 541-42 (2004)). Therefore, "[e]rroneous
instructions are poor candidates for rehabilitation as harmless, and are ordinarily
presumed to be reversible error." State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 54 (1997)
(citation omitted).
"The standard for assessing the soundness of a jury instruction is 'how and
in what sense, under the evidence before them, and the circumstances of the
trial, would ordinary . . . jurors understand the instructions as a whole.'" State
v. Savage, 172 N.J. 374, 387 (2002) (quoting Crego v. Carp, 295 N.J. Super.
565, 573 (App. Div. 1996)). "When a jury requests clarification, the trial judge
is obligated to clear the confusion." State v. Conway, 193 N.J. Super. 133, 157
A-2225-17T1
8
(App. Div. 1984) (citing United States v. McCall, 592 F.2d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.
1979)). "So, too, when the jury's question is ambiguous, the judge is obliged to
clear the confusion by asking the jury the meaning of its request." State v.
Graham, 285 N.J. Super. 337, 342 (App. Div. 1995). Indeed,
[a] question from a jury during its deliberations means
that one or more jurors need help and that the matter is
of sufficient importance that the jury is unable to
continue its deliberations until the judge furnishes that
help. An appropriate judicial response requires the
judge to read the question with care to determine
precisely what help is needed.
[State v. Parsons, 270 N.J. Super. 213, 221 (App. Div.
1994).]
The Parsons court further explained:
Jury questions present a glimpse into a jury's
deliberative process. If a question discloses that the
jury needs specific help in understanding issues it must
decide, particularly issues related to the elements of the
crime charged, and that help is not given, we will not
speculate as to whether the verdict would have been
different or the same had the help been given.
[Id. at 224.]
In a case where, as here, the State argues that the error is harmless because
the trial judge correctly instructed the jury in other components of the charge,
"[t]he test to be applied . . . is whether the charge as a whole is misleading, or
sets forth accurately and fairly the controlling principles of law." State v.
A-2225-17T1
9
Jackmon, 305 N.J. Super. 274, 299 (App. Div. 1997) (alteration in original)
(quoting State v. Sette, 259 N.J. Super. 156, 190-91 (App. Div. 1992)). A jury
"charge must be read as a whole in determining whether there was any error."
State v. Torres, 183 N.J. 554, 564 (2005). Moreover, the effect of any error
must be considered "in light 'of the overall strength of the State's case.'" State
v. Walker, 203 N.J. 73, 90 (2010) (quoting State v. Chapland, 187 N.J. 275, 289
(2006)).
When a defendant does not object to perceived error in the jury charge,
we review for plain error. State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66, 79 (2016). "Under
that standard, we disregard any alleged error 'unless it is of such a nature as to
have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" Ibid. (quoting R. 2:10-
2). "Without an objection at the time a jury instruction is given, 'there is a
presumption that the charge was not error and was unlikely to prejudice the
defendant's case.'" State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 (2017) (quoting State
v. Singleton, 211 N.J. 157, 182 (2012)). Plain error, in the context of an
allegedly improper jury charge, "requires demonstration of 'legal impropriety in
the charge prejudicially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant and
sufficiently grievous to justify notice by the reviewing court and to convince the
A-2225-17T1
10
court that of itself the error possessed a clear capacity to bring about an unjust
result.'" Id. at 321 (quoting Chapland, 187 N.J. at 289).
An "agreement to commit a specific crime is at the heart" of the conspiracy
statute. State v. Samuels, 189 N.J. 236, 245 (2007). A conspiracy requires an
"actual agreement [with another] for the commission of the substantive crime[.]"
State v. Kamienski, 254 N.J. Super. 75, 93 (App. Div. 1992). "[M]ere
knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the substantive offense, without an
agreement to cooperate, is not enough to establish one as a participant in a
conspiracy." State v. Abrams, 256 N.J. Super. 390, 401 (App. Div. 1992).
Rather, the State must prove the defendant either agreed with another to engage
in criminal conduct or agreed to aid the other in planning or committing the
crime. N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a); see State v. Ball, 141 N.J. 142, 178 (1995) ("A
conspiracy conviction does not turn on 'doing the act, nor effecting the purpose
for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting
others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement[.]'" (quoting
State v. Carbone, 10 N.J. 329, 337 (1952))). To be guilty of conspiracy, the
defendant must have acted with purpose, i.e., it was his or her "conscious object
to engage in conduct of that nature or cause such a result" or if he or she was
"aware of the existence of such circumstances or he [or] she believes or hopes
A-2225-17T1
11
that they exist." Model Jury Charges (Criminal), "Conspiracy (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-
2)" (rev. Apr. 12, 2010).
When giving a conspiracy instruction, the trial judge must not conflate the
conspiracy's purpose, i.e., its objective, with the mens rea necessary to
consummate the conspiracy. The model jury instructions for conspiracy make
this necessary distinction by using the phrase "conspired to commit the crime"
when describing the conspiracy's aim and only using purpose to refer to the
defendant's mental state. Ibid. Here, the trial judge followed the model jury
instructions in providing the initial conspiracy instruction; however, his
deviation from the model instructions in response to the jury's question resulted
in plain error.
The jury's question was, essentially, if defendant conspired to instigate a
fistfight, and a death resulted, was that a sufficient basis to find conspiracy to
commit murder? As a matter of law, the answer to the question is "no." A
conspiracy is complete the moment the parties agree to "engage in conduct
which constitutes [a] crime," N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(a)(1). Thus, by definition, the
object of the conspiracy cannot change once agreed upon unless there is
evidence the members of the conspiracy agreed to commit a new crime and acted
with purpose to promote or facilitate the new crime.
A-2225-17T1
12
Initially, the trial judge correctly answered the question, saying, "So, the
purpose of the conspiracy is to commit murder. . . . [I]t's insufficient if it's to
promote a fistfight. So, the purpose, the object of the conspiracy is to commit
murder." But, he continued, "the [S]tate has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that when he agreed, it was his conscious object or purpose to promote or make
it easier to commit the crime of murder. And that purpose can evolve during the
course of the conspiracy."
Although we cannot know how the jury interpreted the trial judge's
answer, the jury could well have understood that a conspiracy's aim could evolve
without corresponding proof the parties agreed to carry out the new crime. In
other words, the jury could have found defendant only conspired to instigate a
fistfight but found him guilty of conspiracy to commit murder without finding
defendant agreed to commit murder and it was his conscious object to promote
or facilitate the murder.
We recognize that the phrase at issue was but one vague or incorrect
statement in an otherwise correct jury instruction. However, we cannot ignore
the possibility that the jury convicted defendant of conspiracy upon an invalid
understanding of the law. See Montalvo, 229 N.J. at 324 ("Here, because the
jury instructions permitted the jurors to convict [the defendant] either upon a
A-2225-17T1
13
valid theory of guilt . . . or upon an invalid theory . . . and because we cannot
know upon which theory the jury found [the defendant] guilty, we find that the
jury instructions were clearly capable of producing an unjust result."). For that
reason, we reverse defendant's conviction and remand the matter for a new trial.
It is unnecessary to address defendant's remaining arguments.
Reversed.
A-2225-17T1
14