State v. Atkins

• Decision Date: 18 January 1979
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard Warren ATKINS, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 454

78 N.J. 454

396 A.2d 1122

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Howard Warren ATKINS, Defendant-Respondent.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Sept. 11, 1978.

Decided Jan. 18, 1979.

Ileana N. Saros, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellant (John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen., attorney).

Susan T. Sinins, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-respondent (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SCHREIBER, J.

Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of breaking and entering with intent to steal and was sentenced to serve a three-to-five-year term in State Prison. On appeal the Appellate Division, one judge dissenting, reversed. The majority found that the failure to instruct the jury that voluntary intoxication could negate the specific intent element of the offense charged constituted reversible error. It also held that introduction into evidence of certain prior convictions of the defendant was erroneous. 151 N.J.Super. 555, 377 A.2d 718 (App.Div.1977). Judge Allcorn dissented on both issues, giving rise to this appeal as of right. R. 2:2-1(a).

The facts are substantially undisputed. On August 21, 1974, Mr. and Mrs. Maggipinto, who lived in a one-family dwelling in Union, N.J., retired for the night at approximately 10:00 p. m., their two children having gone to bed earlier in the evening. When they went to bed a 12-inch portable television weighing about 50 pounds was left in its usual position on the kitchen cabinet, plugged into the outlet and with the "rabbit ears" antenna extended in a "V" position.

At approximately 12:15 a. m., the Maggipintos were awakened by a loud noise. Upon going downstairs to investigate, they discovered the defendant standing in the den. Seeing that the defendant had nothing in his hand, Mr. Maggipinto grabbed defendant and brought him into the kitchen, and Mrs. Maggipinto returned upstairs and telephoned the police. Upon being apprehended by Mr. Maggipinto, defendant asked for a cigarette and stated a number of times that he was in the wrong house.

The television set had been moved a distance of about 10 feet from the kitchen cabinet to the dining room. It was no longer plugged in, the plug was wrapped around the handle on the top of the set, and the "rabbit ears" were no longer extended. A clock which had been on top of the set had been placed on the floor. Mr. Maggipinto testified that the defendant pointed to the television and said, "I just want to take your TV."

The Union Township police arrived in about five minutes. The arresting officer testified that defendant had a "normal appearance" with an "odor of alcohol beverage on his breath." The officer questioned the defendant about his consumption of alcohol, and defendant, whose speech was not slurred, told him he had had "a few" drinks. On cross-examination Mrs Maggipinto testified that the defendant did not appear intoxicated at all.

The defendant, his hands placed in handcuffs behind his back, walked with no difficulty from the kitchen to the front entrance, down a flight of eight or nine steps and then to the police car. He exhibited no signs of intoxication during the ride to the police station. At police headquarters he stated his name and address and recited his social security number from memory. His speech was not slurred.

During questioning later in the morning, defendant appeared normal and did not complain of feeling ill. He explained that he walked from the Blue Ribbon Tavern in Hillside to the Maggipinto home, a distance of approximately one mile, that he entered the house believing it to be the home of a girlfriend who lived next door to the Maggipinto home, and that he entered through the basement so as not to alert her husband. Detectives canvassed the area but were unable to locate the residence of the alleged girlfriend or anyone bearing the same name. Subsequent investigation revealed that a lock on a basement window in the Maggipinto home had been broken, the window pushed open and the door from the basement to the kitchen forced.

At trial the defendant did not take the stand. However, three defense witnesses testified that they had observed the defendant in an intoxicated condition earlier in the day. The evidence suggested that defendant had been drinking all day. His business partner testified that when he last saw defendant at approximately 6:30 p. m. defendant was totally drunk and had a bottle in his hand.

At the close of defendant's case the State moved that the court not give an intoxication instruction on the ground that there was no direct evidence that defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime. The trial judge denied the motion. However, he did charge the jury:

(T)here is testimony and evidence in the case that indicates a voluntary consumption of alcoholic beverages by the defendant prior to the time that he is alleged to have committed the offense charged in the indictment.

This in no way should be construed as relieving the defendant of criminal responsibility for the crime charged under this indictment. This principle rests upon the sound public policy which holds all men accountable for acts voluntarily undertaken. In this case if you find that the alcohol was voluntarily taken or consumed and the defendant willfully or maliciously entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Maggipinto at 1110 Salem Road, Township of Union, you may infer that the defendant acted intentionally in committing those acts with which he has been charged.

Explaining that his charge was based on the then existing model jury charge, ¹ and commenting that State v. Maik, 60 N.J. 203, 287 A.2d 715 (1972), encompassed more than murder cases when it declared voluntary intoxication not to be a defense to criminal conduct, the trial judge rejected defense counsel's objection that the charge failed to indicate that intoxication could negate specific intent to steal, an element of breaking and entering with intent to steal.

At the conclusion of the defendant's case, the prosecutor sought to rebut the notion that defendant had mistakenly entered the Maggipinto house by introducing some prior convictions to show the absence of mistake or accident. Evid.R. 55. Defendant opposed this motion on the grounds that the convictions did not go to the question of mistake, that they were too remote in time, and that their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value. The trial court sustained defendant's objections with respect to a 1960 robbery conviction, a 1965 conviction for possession of stolen property, and a 1967 conviction for larceny, finding that these convictions were not sufficiently related to the issue of mistake. However, the court did permit the introduction into evidence of two 1965 convictions, one for entering and larceny and a second for attempted breaking and entering with intent to steal. The court rejected defendant's assertion that these convictions were too remote in time. Instead, noting the similarity between the prior convictions and the offense charged, he found that the probative value of these convictions outweighed their prejudicial effect. In his charge to the jury the trial judge emphasized on several occasions that the two 1965 convictions had been admitted "for the limited purpose * * * as bearing upon the issue of the absence of mistake or accident when the defendant entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Maggipinto on August 22, 1974."

The jury found the defendant guilty. A sentence of a three-to-five-year prison term was imposed in view of some nine prior convictions and the defendant's having violated the terms of his release while awaiting sentence by moving to California.

I

The first issue raised on appeal is whether intoxication is available as a defense to the charge of breaking and entering with intent to steal. The majority of the Appellate Division found that the trial judge's instruction that voluntary intoxication was not a defense constituted reversible error. Relying on the distinction between general and specific intent, State v. Del Vecchio, 142 N.J. 359, 361 A.2d 579 (App.Div.), certif. den., 71 N.J. 501, 366 A.2d 657 (1976), the court held that voluntary intoxication is a defense to a charge of breaking and entering with intent to steal to the extent that it prevents the defendant from forming the specific intent to steal. In so ruling, the Appellate Division viewed the rule set forth by this Court in State v. Maik, 60 N.J. 203, 287 A.2d 715 (1972), as being limited to murder cases.

Judge Allcorn, reading Maik as precluding voluntary intoxication as a defense generally for crimes other than first degree murder, disagreed. He viewed Del Vecchio to be in conflict with the rule laid down in Maik. Judge Allcorn also concluded that, even if intoxication were a valid defense, the lack of evidence of intoxication at the time of the breaking and entering would have precluded a charge on that issue.

For the reasons stated in State v. Stasio, 78 N.J. 467, 396 A.2d 1129 (1979), decided this day, we reverse the Appellate Division's holding that voluntary intoxication was available generally to disprove a charge of breaking and entering with intent to steal. The trial court properly charged the jury in this regard and the defendant is not entitled to a new trial on this ground.

Our opinion in Stasio does not preclude the introduction of evidence of intoxication to buttress the affirmative defense of reasonable mistake. This is distinguishable from the use of voluntary intoxication as a general denial of the intent to commit the crime. In the present case the trial court's instruction on intoxication did not prevent the jury from considering defendant's possible intoxication as it might have related to mistake. The court tied the intoxication instruction into the requirement that the jury find that Atkins willfully or maliciously entered the Maggipinto home. While the trial court might have given...