STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. KEVIN MILLER (16-04-1284, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2356-18
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KEVIN MILLER, a/k/a
IBN MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted May 3, 2021 – Decided July 19, 2021
Before Judges Sabatino and Currier.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 16-04-1284.
Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for
appellant (Marcia Blum, Assistant Deputy Public
Defender, of counsel and on the briefs).
Theodore N. Stephens II, Acting Essex County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Frank J. Ducoat,
Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant
Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
After a ten-day jury trial, defendant Kevin Miller was found guilty of
felony murder, two simultaneous robberies, and other offenses. He now appeals
his conviction and sentence.
The State's proofs showed that after 2:00 a.m. on the morning of June 20,
2015, the two victims, Shakime Peppers and his cousin Radee Foye, were sitting
on the stoop of Peppers' residence in Newark. Two men, one of whom was later
identified by Foye as defendant and another man who was never positively
identified, approached the cousins and demanded their belongings. Both men
were pointing guns.
Foye handed over money and his cellular phone to the robbers. The other
victim, Peppers, heard something and asked "What?" In response, one of the
robbers attempted to fire his gun, but it malfunctioned and "went click." Both
Peppers and Foye ran away in different directions. Peppers was chased by the
robbers. Moments later Foye heard a gunshot, and when he returned, he saw
Peppers had been killed by that gunfire.
There were no eyewitnesses to the crimes other than Foye, although a
video recorded from an exterior surveillance camera showed Foye and Peppers
coming and going from the location. The video is not clear enough to identify
the robbers. A shell casing was recovered near the scene and ballistics matched
A-2356-18
2
it to a gun later found in the possession of a third party. No DNA or fingerprint
evidence forensically established the identity of the two robbers, or which one
of them had shot and killed Peppers.
Shortly after the robberies and shooting, Foye gave a recorded statement
to the police, in which he detailed what had occurred. In that recorded statement,
Foye positively identified defendant, who he called "Manny," as one of the
robbers. Foye did not make an identification of the other perpetrator, other than
to describe that person's clothing and appearance.
When he was called by the prosecution as a witness at trial, Foye refused
to give a detailed account of the incident and declined to identify defendant
saying that he couldn’t remember the events because he was intoxicated.
However, after a Gross1 hearing, at which the trial court found Foye's recorded
statement "reliable," the recorded statement was admitted and played for the
jury. The court also admitted into evidence, after a Miranda2 hearing,
defendant's police interrogation, in which he generally denied wrongdoing.
1
See State v. Gross, 121 N.J. 1, 15-17 (1990) (adopting a multi-factor test for
the admission of a trial witness's sworn prior inconsistent statements).
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
A-2356-18
3
Defendant did not testify on his own behalf at trial. The tenor of his
defense was focused on discrediting the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Trial counsel argued defendant had an alibi and had not been near the scene of
the crime. The defense further asserted that Foye's inculpatory recorded
identification was made while intoxicated and under improper influence by his
family and friends.
Following the jury's guilty verdict, the trial court sentenced defendant on
the felony murder count to a thirty-year prison term subject to an eighty-five
percent parole disqualifier under the No Early Release Act ("NERA"), N.J.S.A.
2C:43-7.2, consecutive to a fifteen-year NERA sentence on one of the
robberies.3
In this direct appeal, defendant raises a variety of arguments concerning
trial and sentencing issues:
POINT I
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE COURT
TO FAIL TO GRANT A MISTRIAL WHEN THE
PROSECUTOR ELICITED TESTIMONY FROM
TWO WITNESSES THAT DEFENDANT WAS IN
3
The judgment of conviction also imposed a consecutive eight-year sentence
on Count 5 for possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, but the parties
agree that, based on the court's oral ruling in the transcript, this particular
component of the sentence should be made concurrent to other counts.
A-2356-18
4
JAIL, AND THE PREJUDICE WAS ONLY
EXACERBATED BY THE COURT’S BELATED
AND FLAWED CURATIVE INSTRUCTION.
A. TELLING THE JURY THE DEFENDANT IS IN
JAIL VIOLATES THE PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE.
B. THE PROSECUTOR GETS QUADERRAH
STARKS TO SAY THAT MILLER IS IN JAIL.
C. THE PROSECUTOR GETS SHAQUANAH
STARKS TO SAY THAT MILLER IS IN JAIL.
D. THE ERRORS WERE BEYOND CURE BY AN
INSTRUCTION, AND THE BELATED AND
MISGUIDED INSTRUCTION THE COURT
DELIVERED EXACERBATED THE PREJUDICE.
E. THE TESTIMONY FROM TWO WITNESSES
INFORMING THE JURY THAT DEFENDANT WAS
IN JAIL WAS HARMFUL ERROR.
POINT II
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR FOR THE
PROSECUTOR TO REPEATEDLY CHARGE THAT
DEFENDANT AND TWO WITNESSES WERE
“LIARS” AND TO ASSURE THE JURY THAT A
POLICE WITNESS WAS “HONEST AND
TRUTHFUL.”
POINT III
BOTH ROBBERIES MUST MERGE WITH THE
FELONY MURDER BECAUSE THE JURY WAS
INSTRUCTED THAT IT COULD NOT CONVICT OF
FELONY MURDER UNLESS IT FOUND THAT THE
A-2356-18
5
MURDER OCCURRED DURING THE
COMMISSION OF BOTH ROBBERIES; AT A
MINIMUM, THE SENTENCES ON THE FELONY
MURDER AND THE NON-MERGED ROBBERY
MUST BE CONCURRENT.
A. PREDICATE FELONIES MERGE WITH THE
FELONY MURDER.
B. BOTH ROBBERIES MERGE WITH THE
FELONY MURDER BECAUSE THE JURY WAS
TOLD THAT IT COULD NOT CONVICT OF
FELONY MURDER UNLESS IT FOUND BEYOND
A REASONABLE [DOUBT] THAT THE MURDER
WAS COMMITTED IN THE COURSE OF BOTH
ROBBERIES
C. THE RULE IN STATE V. HILL IS
INAPPLICABLE ON THESE UNIQUE FACTS.
D. IF THE COURT DOES NOT MERGE BOTH
ROBBERIES WITH THE FELONY MURDER, IT
MUST RUN THE SENTENCES ON THE
UNMERGED ROBBERY AND THE FELONY
MURDER CONCURRENTLY.
POINT IV
THE SENTENCES FOR THE FELONY MURDER
AND THE NON-MERGED PREDICATE FELONY
SHOULD BE CONCURRENT.
POINT V
THE COURT ORDERED THE SENTENCE ON
COUNT 5 TO RUN CONCURRENTLY TO THE
OTHER SENTENCES. THE AMENDED JUDGMENT
OF CONVICTION MISTAKENLY RECORDS THE
A-2356-18
6
SENTENCE ON COUNT 5 AS RUNNING
CONSECUTIVELY TO THE OTHER SENTENCES,
AND MUST BE CORRECTED TO STATE THAT IT
IS CONCURRENT.
In a supplemental brief, defendant raises this additional sentencing point:
POINT VI
THE LAW REQUIRING SENTENCING
MITIGATION FOR YOUTHFUL DEFENDANTS
DEMANDS RETROACTIVE APPLICATION
BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED IT;
THE NEW LAW IS AMELIORATIVE IN NATURE;
THE SAVINGS STATUTE IS INAPPLICABLE; AND
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS MANDATES IT.
A. THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.
B. THE NEW MITIGATING FACTOR IS
AMELIORATIVE.
C. THE SAVINGS STATUTE DOES NOT
PRECLUDE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF
THIS AMELIORATIVE RETROACTIVE STATUTE.
D. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE
MITIGATING FACTOR IS REQUIRED AS A
MATTER OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND TO
EFFECTUATE THE REMEDIAL PURPOSE OF THE
SENTENCING COMMISSION'S EFFORTS
REGARDING JUVENILE SENTENCING.
Having considered these arguments, we affirm defendant's conviction and
sentence, except we remand to the trial court to implement the agreed-upon
A-2356-18
7
modification of the sentence on Count 5 from a consecutive term to a concurrent
term.
I.
We first address defendant's contentions that he should have been granted
a mistrial because two witnesses called by the State, Quaderrah Starks and her
sister Shaquanah Starks,4 revealed to the jurors that defendant was incarcerated
before trial.
Defendant had been dating Shaquanah. The sisters shared a cell
phone. During their direct examination by the prosecutor, they were each asked
if they had recently spoken with defendant, in an apparent effort to show their
bias in favor of him. Despite being asked a series of "yes" or "no" questions,
both sisters blurted out that they could not call defendant because he was in jail.
Defense counsel requested a mistrial after both of the sisters' statements,
which the trial judge denied. The judge did provide a curative instruction within
the final charge days later, telling the jurors it is common that people charged
with crimes are held in jail pending trial, and that they should disregard that fact
in deciding whether defendant was guilty.
4
We refer to the two Starks sisters by their first names for clarity, but intend
no disrespect.
A-2356-18
8
The parties did stipulate, and the jurors were told, that the sisters' shared
phone reflected forty or more calls with defendant during the time period leading
up to the trial (as the prosecutor was trying to elicit). The instruction on those
stipulated facts also informed the jury that during those phone calls the sisters
discussed the case with defendant, although he did not tell them how to testify.
The instruction did not disclose that the calls were on a recorded prison phone
line.
As eventually clarified by the trial judge, he found the prosecutor's
questioning of the sisters, which had revealed defendant's jail status, was "not
orchestrated" to elicit the challenged testimony. The prosecutor said nothing
about defendant's incarceration in closing argument.
On appeal, defendant argues the sisters' revelation of his jail status to the
jury was an egregious error that compels a new trial, and that the court's delayed
curative instructions were manifestly inadequate. We disagree.
Several general principles guide our review of this issue. It has long been
held that mistrials are to be ordered with the "greatest caution." State v. Witte,
13 N.J. 598, 611 (1953). Thus, a mistrial should only be granted when
evidentiary errors during trial cannot be ameliorated by curative instructions.
State v. Winter, 96 N.J. 640, 647 (1984). A jury is generally presumed to be
A-2356-18
9
"capable of following a curative instruction to ignore prejudicial matter."
Williams v. James, 113 N.J. 619, 632 (1989); see also State v. Herbert, 457 N.J.
Super. 490, 503-08 (App. Div. 2019) (recognizing the "abundant" authority that
courts presume juries will follow instructions, albeit also recognizing that
instructions may be inadequate to cure prejudice in some situations).
"[A]n appellate court will not disturb a trial court's ruling on a motion for
a mistrial, absent an abuse of discretion that results in a manifest injustice."
State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 205 (1997) (citing State v. DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360,
383 (1969)); see also State v. Smith, 224 N.J. 36, 47 (2016) (citing Harvey for
the same proposition); R. 3:20-1. Evidentiary errors that prompted an
unsuccessful motion for a mistrial should be disregarded unless they were
"clearly capable of producing an unjust result." Winter, 96 N.J. at 648; see also
R. 2:10-1. Where, as here, multiple errors are alleged, "the predicate for relief
for cumulative error must be that the probable effect of the cumulative error was
to render the underlying trial unfair." State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 538
(2007).
The decision as to whether curative instructions will be sufficient in
curing the introduction of inadmissible evidence is "peculiarly within the
competence of the trial judge . . . . " Winter, 96 N.J. at 646-47. A reviewing
A-2356-18
10
court should give "equal deference to the determination of the trial court" when
weighing the effectiveness of curative instructions issued by the trial judge.
Ibid.Here, defendant's requests for a mistrial emanated out of the potential
prejudice to him caused by the jury learning from the testimony of the Starks
sisters that he had been in jail—for some unspecified reason at some point in
time—before the present trial commenced. In this regard, defendant compares
his circumstances to cases in which a jury had observed a defendant in the
courtroom bound by handcuffs or wearing prison garb.
Our laws disfavor placing physical restraints on criminal defendants when
they appear at trial, because the restraints may suggest to the jury they are
dangerous persons who are not to be trusted, "even under the surveillance of
officers." State v. Artwell, 177 N.J. 526, 534 (2003). Similarly, when a criminal
defendant appears in court in prison clothes, his or her appearance as an apparent
wrongdoer may prejudicially affect the jury's judgment. Ibid.; see also Estelle
v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503-04 (1976) (holding that when a defendant
appears in his prison clothes, his or her right to a fair trial and the presumption
of innocence under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
may be implicated).
A-2356-18
11
The same concerns about undue prejudice flow from the admission of
"other crimes" evidence under N.J.R.E. 404(b). On some occasions, evidence
of a defendant's previous incarceration or commission of crimes "poses a distinct
risk that it will distract a jury from an independent consideration of the evidence
that bears directly on guilt itself." State v. G.S., 145 N.J. 460, 468 (1996).
Defendant cites in this regard to State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 609-10
(2004), in which a jury learned of a defendant's incarceration for another offense
and the Supreme Court reversed his murder conviction based on the prejudice
that revelation could have on the jury. In Reddish, however, the potential for
prejudice was much more significant than in the present case.
In Reddish, police interrogated the defendant after a television broadcast
showed he was in custody for killing his girlfriend in Burlington County. Id. at
606-07. While in custody for the separate murder charge, the defendant
confessed to investigators from Cherry Hill that he had killed the victim, for
which he was suspected years earlier. He later stated the same to a news
reporter. The jury was told at trial that the defendant's girlfriend was deceased,
and that he was in custody for "an unrelated charge" when he confessed to the
murder. No specific reference was made to the nature of that "unrelated charge."
Id. at 607-10. In summations, however, the prosecutor argued that because the
A-2356-18
12
defendant was in custody for the unrelated charge, he "had reached the end of
the line. He couldn't hide from the truth any longer and he couldn't hide the
truth any longer." Id. at 607-08. The Supreme Court explained that, in
culmination, "the risk, if not the likelihood, that a jury would infer that defendant
was in custody for another murder foreseeably outweighed the marginal
probative value of the custodial nature of his confession." Id. at 610.
The circumstances of this case are not as prejudicial. The references to
defendant's incarceration were fleeting, and the details were scant. See
Jackowitz v. Lang, 408 N.J. Super. 495, 505 (App. Div. 2009) (noting that
"[f]leeting comments, even if improper, may not warrant a new trial, particularly
when the verdict is fair"); see also Herbert, 457 N.J. Super. at 508. All that the
jury heard from the Starks sisters was that defendant was in "County" (meaning
the County jail) and that he was "incarcerated," without elaboration or
specifying that he had committed a separate crime. These glancing references,
which were quickly objected to by defense counsel before any further
elaboration, were not pervasive or sustained. The situation was not comparable
to one in which the jurors continuously gazed upon a defendant in the courtroom
wearing shackles or a prison jump suit, nor are they similar to the scenario in
Reddish.
A-2356-18
13
The curative instruction issued by the trial judge here dispassionately
explained that it is not uncommon for a person being charged with a crime to be
held in jail before his or her case is tried. The instruction stressed that defendant
must be presumed under the law to be innocent. It appropriately admonished
the jurors to not draw any adverse inference against him just because he had
been in jail when the sisters had contact with him. Defense counsel ultimately
agreed to include the admonition proposed by the prosecution after the wording
was discussed on the record. As we have already noted, the prosecutor did not
try to take advantage of the revelation during closing argument . There was no
reference to any other crimes defendant had been previously charged with or
committed.
We are mindful that, ideally, curative instructions should be issued
promptly. See State v. Vallejo, 198 N.J. 122, 134-35 (2009). We recognize the
judge in this case did not issue the curative instruction immediately after the
sisters' testimony but issued it days later. Even so, we are unpersuaded the
instruction was ineffectual, or that the blurted-out words of the sisters were so
pernicious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial.
A-2356-18
14
In sum, the fleeting references did not have the clear capacity to deprive
defendant of a fair trial, Rule 2:10-2, and the court did not abuse its discretion
in rejecting the drastic measure of a mistrial.
II.
For the first time on appeal, defendant alleges the prosecutor's closing
argument was unduly prejudicial by virtue of his comments referring to
defendant and defense witnesses as "liars," while, on the other hand, describing
one of the responding detectives as an "honest" witness.
Because this argument was not raised below by defendant's trial attorney,
we consider it through the prism of a "plain error" standard of review. R. 2:10-
2. Not only must defendant show the admission of the prosecutor's commen ts
was error, but he must further demonstrate that the possibility of injustice
flowing from the comments is "sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to
whether the error led the jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached."
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971); see also State v. Prall, 231 N.J. 567,
581 (2018) (citing Macon for the same point). Defendant fails to establish such
reversible plain error.
As the Supreme Court reiterated a few months ago in State v. Williams,
244 N.J. 592 (2021), "the fundamental obligation of those representing the State
A-2356-18
15
in criminal prosecutions is not to convict, 'but to see that justice is done.'" Id.
at 607 (quoting State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76, 83 (1999)). Nonetheless, the
prosecution's duty to achieve justice does not forbid a prosecutor from
presenting the State's case in a "vigorous and forceful" manner. State v.
Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 288 (1987); see also State v. Smith, 167 N.J. 158, 177
(2001). Criminal trials often create a "'charged atmosphere . . . [that] frequently
makes it arduous for the prosecuting attorney to stay within the orbit of strict
propriety.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Bucanis, 26 N.J. 45, 56 (1958)).
Although "prosecutors in criminal cases are expected to make vigorous
and forceful closing arguments to juries" and are "afforded considerable
leeway," "their comments [should be] reasonably related to the scope of the
evidence presented." Williams, 244 N.J. at 607 (alterations in original) (quoting
Frost, 158 N.J. at 82). "[A]s long as the prosecutor stays within the evidence
and the legitimate inferences therefrom, . . . [t]here is no error." Id. at 608
(internal citations omitted).
As a general rule, it "is improper for a prosecutor to express his personal
opinion on the veracity of any witness." State v. Rivera, 437 N.J. Super. 434,
463 (App. Div. 2014) (citing State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 154 (1991)).
However, not all such expressions of opinion are so inherently prejudicial to
A-2356-18
16
require a new trial. If defense counsel does not object contemporaneously to the
prosecutor's comments, "the reviewing court may infer that counsel did not
consider the remarks to be inappropriate." State v. Vasquez, 265 N.J. Super.
528, 560 (App. Div. 1993) (citing State v. Johnson, 31 N.J. 489, 511 (1960));
see also Frost, 158 N.J. at 83 ("[g]enerally, if no objection was made to the
improper remarks, the remarks will not be deemed prejudicial"); State v. Kane,
449 N.J. Super. 119, 141 (App. Div. 2017) (same).
Here, the allegedly improper statements of opinion by the prosecutor were
substantially supported by the video recorded evidence that was played for the
jury. The State's case largely focused on showing how the assertions of
defendant in his police statement and the trial testimony of the defense witnesses
were contradicted by other evidence. The prosecutor highlighted those
contradictions by playing the video recordings and contrasting them with the
defense assertions. In large measure, the prosecutor had a substantiated basis to
support his argument to the jury that the defense witnesses had lied.
For instance, although Shaquanah and Quaderrah both denied they had
contact with defendant before trial, the State produced prison call logs showing
that such contact had indeed occurred, causing the defense to stipulate to that
fact. Similarly, although defendant told the police he had arrived home in a
A-2356-18
17
"classic cab" the night of the incident, the prosecutor countered with evidence
of a statement by Shaquanah that he had arrived home with friends in a "black
Jeep."
The prosecutor spotlighted for the jurors these and other inconsistencies
during his closing argument, reasonably arguing the inconsistencies show ed
defendant and his witnesses had been untruthful in various respects.
The prosecutor's comments advocating, by comparison, the credibility of
the police detective also did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The
prosecutor's assertion that the detective was honest and truthful was, at least in
part, a justified attempt to deal with the detective's mistaken view of the law,
i.e., that Peppers was not a robbery victim because he never actually had
anything taken from him. The prosecutor was permissibly arguing to the
jurors—within the fair bounds of advocacy—that they should not treat the
detective's misunderstanding about Peppers' legal status as being tantamount to
intentional lying. The detective's misapprehension was fairly characterized in
the State's summation as an "honest" mistake. There was no objection to this,
and no manifest injustice in allowing the jurors, having heard the lawyer's
argument, to form their own judgments about the detective's veracity.
A-2356-18
18
In sum, there is no reason to set aside this verdict because of the
prosecutor's unobjected-to closing argument.
III.
Finally, we consider defendant's arguments concerning his sentence. In
assessing these arguments, we apply well settled principles that afford
considerable deference to sentencing judges.
As a general proposition, appellate courts may not substitute their
judgment for that of the sentencing court, unless the application of the
sentencing guidelines to the facts makes the sentence "clearly unreasonable so
as to shock the judicial conscience." State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 365 (1984); see
also State v. Liepe, 239 N.J. 359, 370 (2019) (citing Roth). "[W]hen [trial
judges] exercise discretion in accordance with the principles set forth in the
Code [of Criminal Justice] and defined by [the Court] . . . , they need fear no
second-guessing.'" State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 607-08 (2010) (quoting State
v. Ghertler, 114 N.J. 383, 384-85 (1989)). Once the trial court has balanced the
aggravating and mitigating sentencing factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)
and -1(b), it "may impose a term within the permissible range for the offense."
Id. at 608; see also State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 54 (2014); State v. Fuentes, 217
N.J. 57, 70-71 (2014).
A-2356-18
19
Mindful of these principles, we turn to defendant's specific claims of
sentencing error.
Defendant initially argues that both of the underlying robberies are
required to merge with the felony murder, because the jury was charged that to
find defendant guilty of felony murder the jury must find "the defendant was
engaged in the commission of . . . the crime of robbery, as charged in Counts 2
and 4 of the indictment." (Emphasis added). He further points out that the
prosecution had argued to the jury with regard to the felony murder count that
the jury must find that "in the course of the theft or the attempted theft of
Shakime Peppers and Radee Foye or immediate flight thereafter, the victim was
shot . . . ." (Emphasis added).
As a general proposition, "[w]hen the same conduct of a defendant may
establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant may be
prosecuted for each such offense." N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8(a) (emphasis added).
Merger at sentencing is required under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8(a)(1) when one proven
offense is a lesser-included offense of another. Our courts determine whether
two charges should merge at sentencing by looking to:
[T]he time and place of each purported violation[,]
whether the proof submitted as to one count of the
indictment would be a necessary ingredient to a
conviction under another count[,] whether one act was
A-2356-18
20
an integral part of a larger scheme or episode[,] the
intent of the accused[,] and the consequences of the
criminal standards transgressed.
[State v. Davis, 68 N.J. 69, 81 (1975) (emphasis
added).]
These factors are "attended by considerations of 'fairness and fulfillment of
reasonable expectations in light of the constitutional and common law goals.'"
Ibid. (quoting State v. Currie, 41 N.J. 531, 539 (1964)).
Generally, in determining whether to merge a defendant's convictions, the
court will follow a flexible approach that focuses on the elements of the crime
and the Legislature's intent in creating them. State v. Tate, 216 N.J. 300, 306
(2013) (citing State v. Hill, 182 N.J. 532, 542 (2005)). "Convictions for lesser-
included offenses, offenses that are a necessary component of the commission
of another offense, or that merely offer an alternative basis for punishing the
same criminal conduct will merge." Ibid. However, when there is only one
death, there can only be one conviction for felony murder. State v. Manning,
234 N.J. Super. 147, 164 (1989). A second underlying felony conviction, even
without the accompanying murder charge, does not need to be disregarded for
sentencing purposes. Ibid.In Hill, 182 N.J. 532, the Supreme Court considered the context of
merging at sentencing multiple predicate offenses into a felony murder count.
A-2356-18
21
In that case, a defendant was found guilty of multiple predicate offenses to
felony murder. We held that because a special verdict sheet was not used
pursuant to Rule 3:19–1(b), all of the predicate offenses merged into the felony
murder. The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning and reversed our
disposition, remanding the case for resentencing. Id. at 540.
The Court noted in Hill that "[i]nasmuch as the crime of felony murder
requires a predicate crime, when more than one predicate felony is found by the
jury[,] the question becomes whether, and to what extent, one or more of such
predicate crimes merges into the felony murder conviction for sentencing
purposes." Id. at 541.
Our review of this jurisprudence leads us to
conclude that, in the context of felony murder
considerations, the best course is to simplify the merger
determination. We therefore hold that there is a
"compelling need for the use of special verdict
[forms]," [State v. Diaz, 144 N.J. 628, 644 (1996)],
under Rule 3:19–1(b) for the jury to designate which
felony or felonies constitute the predicate crime for a
felony murder conviction. If the jury designates more
than one felony as the predicate for felony murder, the
trial court at sentencing is to merge only the predicate
felony that set in motion the chain of events leading to
the murder—the “first-in-time” predicate felony—into
the felony murder conviction.
[Id. at 548 (emphasis added).]
A-2356-18
22
In adopting its first-in-time principle, the Court did not address in Hill a situation
of two simultaneous predicate felonies, which is the context here. Even so, there
appears to be no logical necessity to have both robberies merge into the felony
murder.
Defendant would have us follow the analysis in State v. Diaz, 144 N.J.
628 (1996), in which the Supreme Court suggested that the reviewing court look
to the summations of the prosecution and the jury instructions to determine
whether the charges merge. However, the Diaz opinion was issued before Hill,
which did not focus on the summations.
The wording of the jury instructions in this case does not clearly mandate
the merger of both robberies into the felony murder, as advocated by defendant.
The pertinent language used in the jury instructions, i.e., "as charged in Counts
2 and 4," is not inclusive, but rather is exemplary. It is not verbiage that requires
both Counts to be found to be the predicate crimes for felony murder. It instead
reasonably conveys, consistent with the law, that either robbery count alone
could be sufficient to serve as the predicate felony.
The verdict sheet itself, albeit not a special verdict sheet, lists Count 2 (the
robbery of Shakime Peppers) before Count 3 (felony murder), followed by
Count 4 (the robbery of Radee Foye). That sequence clearly tracks the order of
A-2356-18
23
the counts in the indictment. It logically suggests that the robbery of Peppers
(Count 2) should be the one to merge with felony murder. The other robbery of
Foye, as embodied in Count 4, need not merge.
Defendant also contests the trial court's imposition of consecutive
sentences. As a preliminary matter, both parties do agree this case must be
remanded for the Judgment of Conviction to reflect that the court actually
imposed a concurrent sentence as to Count 5, not a consecutive sentence.
Assuming, as we have held above, the robbery of Foye does not merge
into the felony murder, we must consider whether that robbery count should run
concurrently or consecutively to the felony murder count. Defendant argues the
trial court's analysis in imposing a consecutive term for the robbery was
tantamount to imputing a higher degree of murder and criminal intent upon him
that was not based on the evidence in the record. We disagree.
In State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985), our Supreme Court identified
the relevant criteria for determining when consecutive, as opposed to
concurrent, sentences should be imposed. The Court noted that it is "senseless"
to fashion sentences that essentially allow "free" crimes. Id. at 639. Instead, a
sentencing court should consider the factual content of the crimes, including
whether or not: (1) the crimes and their objectives were predominantly
A-2356-18
24
independent of each other; (2) the crimes involved separate acts of violenc e or
threats of violence; (3) the crimes were committed at different times or separate
places, rather than being committed so closely in time and place as to indicate a
single period of aberrant behavior; (4) any of the crimes involved multiple
victims; and (5) the convictions for which the sentences were imposed were
numerous. Id. at 643-44. These five factors are to be applied qualitatively,
rather than quantitatively.
In this case, the trial judge balanced the mitigating and aggravating factors
under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and -1(b). He found that aggravating factors -1(a)(3),
(6) and (9) apply and outweighed any mitigating factors. The trial judge
expressed sound reasons for his sentencing decisions on the record, and
considered defendant's claims of mitigating factors, including the fact that
defendant has two children, for whom he is not the primary caregiver.
Defendant argues that consecutive sentencing on these charges is
tantamount to finding that he had the requisite state of mind for purposeful or
knowing murder under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), (2) because the trial judge
remarked that defendant "had the objective[] of murdering Shakime Peppers."
That comment was a prelude to the judge's discussion of the Yarbough factors,
in which he explained:
A-2356-18
25
Applying those factors, the Court find that the
objectives of murdering Shakime Peppers and robbing
Radee Foye were predominately independent of one
another. Defendant took property from Radee Foy but
not - - did not even attempt to do so after having shot
and killed Shakime Peppers. There are multiple victims
in this case. The acts of violence; that is, shooting
Shakime Peppers is separate from the threat of violence
against Radee Foye. While the crimes were committed
closely together and in the same place, to sentence
defendant concurrently for the crime of robbery of
Radee Foye and the murder of Shakime Peppers would
be to give Defendant a free crime.
As noted by defendant, and admitted by the prosecution, it was not clear from
the record who pulled the trigger of the gun that shot Peppers. There is a
reasonable basis in the record to punish defendant with consecutive sentences
for both the death of Peppers committed in the course of a felony, and the
commission of at least one of the two robberies.
As the trial judge recognized, the crimes did begin together. However,
Foye escaped, whereas Peppers was chased and shot. The violence escalated
with Peppers as a second victim. It was appropriate to treat the robbery of Foye
as distinct from the ensuing killing of Peppers. We thus affirm the consecutive
sentences that were imposed, and on remand the Judgment of Conviction shall
be corrected to reflect the sentence as handed down by the trial judge at the
sentencing hearing to any extent it is inconsistent. See State v. Vasquez, 374
A-2356-18
26
N.J. Super. 252, 270 (2005) ("A trial court's oral opinion normally controls over
an inconsistent judgment of conviction.").
Defendant lastly argues in his supplemental brief that the case should be
remanded for application of the mitigating factor of youth to be considered in
sentencing as espoused in L. 2020, c. 110 (eff. Oct. 19, 2020), which amended
N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b) by adding the defendant's youth (i.e., less than twenty-six
years of age) to the mitigating sentencing factors. Our case law has rejected the
claim that this statute applies retroactively in the absence of an independent
basis to remand a sentence, see State v. Tormasi, 466 N.J. Super. 51, 67 (App.
Div. 2021). Since we are only remanding the matter to remove the inadvertent
consecutive term on Count 5, the trial court is not authorized to consider the new
"youth factor" when it carries out that ministerial correction.
Affirmed in part, and remanded in part to correct the sentence on Count 5
as explained in this opinion.
A-2356-18
27