State v. Bell
Decision Date | 14 April 2020 |
Docket Number | A-58 September Term 2018,081743 |
Citation | 230 A.3d 219,241 N.J. 552 |
Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Isaiah BELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Isaac Wright, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (Hunt, Hamlin & Ridley, attorneys; Isaac Wright, Jr., Newark, on the briefs).
Paul H. Heinzel, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Michael H. Robertson, Somerset County Prosecutor, attorney; Paul H. Heinzel, of counsel and on the briefs).
We granted defendant Isaiah Bell's motion for leave to appeal to this Court to consider whether the prosecutor's failure to instruct the grand jury on lesser-included offenses for murder in response to questions posed by a grand juror constituted an abuse of prosecutorial discretion warranting dismissal of defendant's indictment for first-degree murder and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose. We determine that the prosecutor did not impermissibly interfere with the grand jury's investigative functions. We agree with the trial judge that the grand jury here sought clarification rather than specific instructions on lesser-included offenses for murder, and we therefore affirm the trial court's order denying defendant's motion and request for reconsideration.
We nevertheless note that, where there is a rational basis for providing instructions on lesser-included offenses in response to grand jurors' questions considered in context, prosecutors should instruct the grand jury on lesser-included offenses and advise the grand jury that trial courts may incorporate lesser-included offenses whether or not the grand jury charges them.
The grand jury record below reveals that James Kargbo and defendant's partner, Shanique Coleman, had a child together. Defendant drove with Coleman to Kargbo's house to pick up her son. Kargbo saw them approach, put his son in his car, and blocked defendant's car from moving. Defendant and Kargbo exited their vehicles, got into a physical altercation, reentered their cars, and drove away. Kargbo's car crashed, and he was found lying outside the vehicle covered in blood. Kargbo was transported to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead from stab wounds
apparently inflicted during his altercation with defendant. Officers arrested defendant and charged him with murder and weapons offenses.
A Somerset County prosecutor asked a grand jury to consider two charges against defendant: murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2) and (b)(1), a crime of the first degree, and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d). At the start of the grand jury proceedings, the prosecutor explained the counts and elements of the offenses.
Before the prosecutor called the investigating detective to testify, a grand juror requested that the statute for first-degree murder be read and asked whether there were "different degrees." The prosecutor responded, Later, in response to another question by the same grand juror, the prosecutor explained,
After several witnesses testified and answered questions, the same grand juror asked, "is there such a thing as second-degree murder?" The prosecutor responded by discussing the grand jury's responsibilities regarding "lesser included lower offenses," and the elements of murder.
The prosecutor concluded by reading the model jury charge for murder, after which the grand jury indicted defendant for first-degree murder and third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.
Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment claiming that, because the grand jury asked about lesser-included offenses, the prosecutor should have explained the lesser-included offenses for murder.1 The court denied defendant's motion and subsequent request for reconsideration, finding that the grand jury was not requesting instructions on lesser-included offenses, but rather "clarification." The Appellate Division denied defendant's motion for leave to appeal. Defendant then filed a motion for leave to appeal with this Court arguing that, because the grand jury requested an instruction on "degrees," the prosecutor should have instructed the grand jury on the lesser-included offenses for murder. We granted defendant's motion for leave to appeal. 236 N.J. 631, 202 A.3d 624 (2019).
The State moved to dismiss this appeal as moot after defendant was indicted by a second grand jury for the same crimes. Nevertheless, because this is a matter of general public importance, we elect to consider the motion. See In re Commitment of N.N., 146 N.J. 112, 124, 679 A.2d 1174 (1996) () .
We begin with an overview of the grand jury process and the deferential standard of review applied to indictments returned by a grand jury.
The grand jury functions "as both a sword and shield" of our criminal justice system. State v. Shaw, 241 N.J. 223, 236, 227 A.3d 279 (2020). Article I, Paragraph 8 of the New Jersey Constitution provides in relevant part that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury." Thus, the grand jury "occupie[s] a high place as an instrument of justice in our system of criminal law." State v. Murphy, 110 N.J. 20, 36, 538 A.2d 1235 (1988).
Grand juries "stand[ ] between citizens and the State," and are tasked with "assess[ing] whether there is adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge." State v. Saavedra, 222 N.J. 39, 56, 117 A.3d 1169 (2015) (quoting State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 227, 229-30, 676 A.2d 533 (1996) ). They serve the "dual function of determining if there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and of protecting citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions." State v. Del Fino, 100 N.J. 154, 165, 495 A.2d 60 (1985) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-87, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) ). "The grand jury is a judicial, investigative body, serving a judicial function; it is an arm of the court, not a law enforcement agency or an alter ego of the prosecutor's office." In re Grand Jury Appearance Request by Loigman, 183 N.J. 133, 141, 870 A.2d 249 (2005).
Procedurally, the grand jury does not conduct "a mini-trial," but "an ex parte inquest" -- it is "an accusatory and not an adjudicative body." Hogan, 144 N.J. at 235, 676 A.2d 533 ; see also United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343-44, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) () . To perform that function, grand juries are invested with "broad and unfettered investigative powers" that are largely "unrestrained by the technical procedural and evidentiary rules governing the conduct of criminal trials." In re Application for Disclosure of Grand Jury Testimony, 124 N.J. 443, 449, 591 A.2d 614 (1991) (quoting State v. Doliner, 96 N.J. 236, 249, 475 A.2d 552 (1984) ). Further, a grand jury "must be free to pursue its investigations unhindered by external influence or supervision so long as it does not trench upon the legitimate rights of any witness called before it." State v. Francis, 191 N.J. 571, 586, 926 A.2d 305 (2007) (quoting United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 17-18, 93 S.Ct. 764, 35 L.Ed.2d 67 (1973) ).
Despite the grand jury's investigative independence, "[g]rand jury proceedings are largely controlled by prosecutors." Ibid. And, although the grand jury determines whether there is probable cause, the decision to prosecute and "what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in [the prosecutor's] discretion." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978) ; accord State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128, 168, 590 A.2d 624 (1991) (quoting Bordenkircher ).
Once a grand jury returns an indictment, a court should dismiss that indictment "only on the clearest and plainest ground, and only when the indictment is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hahn
...and ‘where two offenses are the same but a lesser degree of culpability is required to establish the lesser offense.’ " State v. Bell, 241 N.J. 552, 561, 230 A.3d 219 (2020) (quoting State v. Thomas, 187 N.J. 119, 129–30, 900 A.2d 797 (2006) ); see also N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8(d) (defining an "incl......
-
State v. Rodriguez
...may intervene "only on the clearest and plainest ground, and only when the indictment is manifestly deficient or palpably defective." Bell, 241 N.J. at 560 State v. Twiggs, 233 N.J. 513, 531-32 (2018)). However, the court will act "when necessary to ensure the fairness and integrity of gran......
-
State v. Tucker
...a grand jury." "Thus, the grand jury ‘occupie[s] a high place as an instrument of justice in our system of criminal law.’ " State v. Bell, 241 N.J. 552, 559, 230 A.3d 219 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Murphy, 110 N.J. 20, 36, 538 A.2d 1235 (1988) ). As our Supreme Court ......
-
State v. Johnson
... ... inconsistent with the ... intent of the legislators who ... advocated for the passage of LEOSA." ... We ... generally review "[a] trial court's denial of a ... motion to dismiss an indictment ... for abuse of ... discretion." State v. Bell , 241 N.J. 552, 561 ... (2020) (quoting State v. Twiggs , 233 N.J. 513, 544 ... (2018)). However, "[w]hen the decision to dismiss relies ... on a purely legal question, ... we review that ... determination de novo." Twiggs , 233 N.J. at ... 532 ... ...