State v. Bell, A-58 September Term 2018
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Writing for the Court | JUSTICE SOLOMON delivered the opinion of the Court. |
| Citation | 230 A.3d 219,241 N.J. 552 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Isaiah BELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 14 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | A-58 September Term 2018,081743 |
241 N.J. 552
230 A.3d 219
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Isaiah BELL, Defendant-Appellant.
A-58 September Term 2018
081743
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued September 24, 2019
Decided April 14, 2020
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).
JUSTICE SOLOMON delivered the opinion of the Court.
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.
I.
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, "I don't discuss degree with you because degree affects punishment. You don't determine degree, but you do determine whether the facts that you hear fit the elements of the crime." Later, in response to another question by the same grand juror, the prosecutor explained, "What's being presented is this particular statute. The degree is not an element for you. I can't give you a definition of the degree. The degree is set by the Legislature and it's not an element of the offense. You heard the elements of this offense."
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.
Prosecutor: There are lesser included lower offenses for an individual's act of causing the death of another. In order to do that, you would have to find that there is insufficient evidence of a prima facie case that Isaiah Bell committed the act of murder as I have read it to you....
If you think that there is insufficient evidence of a prima facie case that he purposely or knowingly caused death or serious bodily injury resulting in death, I can read to you other statutes that are going to cover the actor's act, if you will, of causing death by another but it's going to have a lower culpability and a reckless culpability.
Juror: So just to be clear, there's no -- there's no part of the definition in the New Jersey statute that speaks to premeditation?
Prosecutor: No, and so let me read to you that in the model jury charge for murder. Now, model jury charge is what the petit jury gets if they sit in a murder case or any case. They're model jury charges for the offense that are linked here and the statute which is what you hear. But there is a segment that specifically deals with that and I will find it and read it ....
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) ("[A] decision by this Court is necessary though the case ... is moot. The issues posed by this case involve significant matters of public policy, are extremely important, and undoubtedly will recur in cases that are likely to be mooted before adjudication.").
II.
We begin with an overview of the grand jury process and the deferential standard of review applied to indictments returned by a grand jury.
A.
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) ("A grand jury proceeding is not an adversary hearing in which the guilt or innocence of the accused is adjudicated. Rather, it is an ex parte investigation to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether criminal proceedings should be instituted against any person."). 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hahn, DOCKET NO. A-4755-18
...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, A-4361-19
...that a crime was committed, and to protect the innocent against unfounded charges. State v. Shaw, 241 N.J. 223, 235 (2020); State v. Bell, 241 N.J. 552, 560 (2020). Though the grand jury is an arm of the court, we reluctantly and sparingly review the grand jury's actions to protect its inde......
-
State v. Tucker, DOCKET NO. A-0937-21
...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, A-5622-18
...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,......
-
State v. Hahn, DOCKET NO. A-4755-18
...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, A-4361-19
...that a crime was committed, and to protect the innocent against unfounded charges. State v. Shaw, 241 N.J. 223, 235 (2020); State v. Bell, 241 N.J. 552, 560 (2020). Though the grand jury is an arm of the court, we reluctantly and sparingly review the grand jury's actions to protect its inde......
-
State v. Tucker, DOCKET NO. A-0937-21
...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, A-5622-18
...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,......