State v. Lodzinski
| Citation | 265 A.3d 36,249 N.J. 116 |
| Decision Date | 26 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | 083398,A-50 September Term 2019 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michelle LODZINSKI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Gerald Krovatin, Newark, argued the cause for appellant (Krovatin Nau and Arseneault & Fassett, attorneys; Gerald Krovatin, Newark, David W. Fassett, and Gregory D. Jones, on the briefs).
Joie D. Piderit, Acting Assistant Prosecutor/Special Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Yolanda Ciccone, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney; Joie D. Piderit, of counsel and the briefs).
Lawrence S. Lustberg, Newark, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (Gibbons and American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Lawrence S. Lustberg, Michael R. Noveck, Alexander Shalom, Newark, and Jeanne LoCicero, on the brief).
Paul J. Casteleiro, Hoboken, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Centurion Ministries, Inc., d/b/a Centurion (Centurion and Fox Rothschild, attorneys; Paul J. Casteleiro, Hoboken, of counsel and on the brief, and Karen A. Confoy, Jack L. Kolpen, Dominique J. Carroll, Lawrenceville, and Allison L. Hollows, on the brief).
Debra G. Simms, Deputy Attorney General, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Debra G. Simms, of counsel and on the brief).
In 2016, a jury convicted Michelle Lodzinski of murdering her five-year-old son, Timothy Wiltsey, twenty-five years earlier. The issue in this case is whether the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, supported the finding that Lodzinski purposely or knowingly caused her son's death. See N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (a)(2).
On May 25, 1991, Timothy went missing. On that day, Lodzinski claimed that Timothy was abducted from a carnival at Kennedy Park in the Borough of Sayreville. Over the course of multiple interrogations, she gave shifting accounts about Timothy's disappearance that cast doubt on her credibility. But Lodzinski never made an incriminating admission, not to the police during many long and exhausting interrogations, not to a former boyfriend who surreptitiously recorded her -- not to anyone. Eleven months later, Timothy's incomplete skeletal remains were found in a shallow creek bed, not far from an office where Lodzinski had previously worked.
No forensic evidence -- no DNA, fiber, or trace evidence -- tied Lodzinski to the child's death. Searches of her house, her car, and her garbage generated no evidence of guilt. No one ever observed Lodzinski abuse Timothy. No witness could say where, when, or precisely how Timothy died. The medical examiner could not determine the cause of death, only that the manner of death was homicide. By most accounts, Lodzinski was caring and devoted to her son, though challenged by the demands of everyday life as a young single mother.
In 1992, an exhaustive investigation by municipal, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies did not result in the return of any criminal charges against Lodzinski or anyone else. The case remained dormant for almost two decades, and Lodzinski went on with her life. She moved to Florida, where she started a family, raised two children, and was employed as a paralegal.
Nineteen years later, in 2011, Sergeant Scott Crocco of the Middlesex County Prosecutor's Office reopened the investigation and enlisted Lodzinski's estranged niece, who had babysat for Timothy decades earlier, to attempt to elicit a confession from her aunt. After that effort failed, Sergeant Crocco displayed for the niece a large blanket found near Timothy's remains. The niece identified the blanket, recalling its presence in Lodzinski's apartment two decades earlier when she babysat Timothy. The identification of that blanket, if believed, undermined Lodzinski's account of Timothy's disappearance at the carnival.
In 2014, a Middlesex County grand jury charged Lodzinski with murder.
On the eve of trial, in the midst of saturated pretrial publicity in this sensational murder case, two former babysitters also identified the blanket. At trial, however, a number of witnesses intimately familiar with Lodzinski's residences during the relevant time period could not identify the blanket. No such blanket appeared in any of the photographs of Lodzinski's apartments.
The State's retained medical examiner concluded that Timothy's death was not accidental but the result of a homicide. The medical examiner did not offer an opinion whether Timothy was the victim of a negligent, reckless, or purposeful or knowing homicide.
After the jury found Lodzinski guilty of murder, the trial court denied her motion for a judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict. A panel of the Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the murder conviction. In making that determination, however, the panel considered only the State's and not the defense's evidence. This Court unanimously held that the appellate panel erred by not assessing the entirety of the evidence and that the panel's standard of review violated our constitutional jurisprudence and court rules.
The six members of the Court sitting on this appeal split three-three on whether, under the correct standard of review, the entirety of the evidence supported Lodzinski's murder conviction. Today, with the presence of the Appellate Division judge most senior in service, we are constituted as a seven-member Court.
We now hold that after reviewing "the entirety of the evidence and after giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony and all the favorable inferences drawn from that testimony," no reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Lodzinski purposefully or knowingly caused Timothy's death. State v. Williams, 218 N.J. 576, 594, 95 A.3d 721 (2014) (citing State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 458-59, 236 A.2d 385 (1967) ).
The jury is the ultimate trier of fact in our system of justice, and the greatest deference is given to its factual findings. A court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the jury or second-guess a jury's verdict merely because it might have come to a different outcome if it were the factfinder.
Our criminal justice system, however, recognizes that juries are not infallible. The checks and balances built within our system of justice are intended to prevent a miscarriage of justice. To that end, our trial and appellate courts are granted a reservoir of power -- though rarely invoked -- to overturn a conviction that is not rationally based in the evidence. See R. 3:18-1 ; R. 3:18-2. However difficult its task may be, a court on a Rule 3:18-2 motion must ensure that a jury verdict meets the evidential standard mandated by our constitutional jurisprudence and court rules.
Even if the evidence suggested that Timothy did not die by accident, no testimony or evidence was offered to distinguish whether Timothy died by the negligent, reckless, or purposeful or knowing acts of a person, even if that person were Lodzinski. No conviction can be founded on speculation or conjecture. We may never know the truth about what happened in this case. The only issue is whether the evidence -- presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution -- supports a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Lodzinski purposely or knowingly caused the death of her son.
By that standard the conviction cannot be sustained. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and grant Lodzinski's motion for a judgment of acquittal.
The following facts are derived from the testimony of the many witnesses who appeared for the prosecution and defense, as well as the exhibits introduced into evidence, during a twenty-eight-day jury trial.
In the days leading up to the carnival at Kennedy Park in Sayreville on May 25, 1991, nothing appeared amiss in the lives of Michelle Lodzinski and her five-year-old son Timothy. Lodzinski had gotten Timothy his kindergarten graduation gown. She had purchased him a pair of Ninja Turtles sneakers the week before the carnival, and the two went shopping for new clothes the day before the event.
On May 24, Lodzinski and Timothy were making plans with Lodzinski's sister Linda to visit her in Florida and go to Disney World. According to her sister, Lodzinski and Timothy seemed excited about attending the carnival the next day. Lodzinski also arranged to take her young niece Jessica to the carnival.
That evening, a neighbor chatted with Lodzinski and Timothy on their front porch about the carnival as they awaited a pizza delivery. To the neighbor, Timothy "seemed very happy, and [Lodzinski] seemed in a good mood, too."
The next morning, May 25 at around 11:00 a.m., a neighbor who lived across the street from Lodzinski saw Timothy, dressed in shorts and a polo shirt, playing with a friend outside. Lodzinski left a message on the answering machine of her then-boyfriend, Fred Bruno, telling him that she and Timothy were going to the carnival that day.
Lodzinski told law enforcement officers that, in the afternoon, she took Timothy to Holmdel Park in Holmdel, where they walked around a lake, visited the petting zoo, and played kickball.1 From there, they went to the carnival at Kennedy Park in Sayreville, arriving around 7:00 p.m. Lodzinski did not pick up Jessica, as earlier planned.
Jennifer Blair (later Blair-Dilcher), Lodzinski's then-fourteen-year-old niece, and Blair's then-fourteen-year-old friend Danielle Gerding testified that shortly after their arrival at the carnival, they found Lodzinski standing alone. When they asked Lodzinski where Timothy was, Lodzinski told them that Timothy had been missing for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greene v. Chetirkin
... ... under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner Ronald B. Greene, a ... New Jersey state prisoner who is challenging his 2014 ... convictions for conspiracy to distribute heroin, robbery, and ... related offenses. (ECF No. 1) ... trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable ... doubt[.]”) See, State v. Lodzinski , 265 A.3d ... 36, 60 (2021) (quoting Jackson [ v ... Virginia ], 443 U.S. [307,] 317 (1979). Therefore, this ... Court ... ...
-
State v. Figueroa
...most favorable to the prosecution, rationally supported the jury's finding beyond a reasonable doubt that" defendant possessed a firearm. Id. at 145 (citing State v. Mayberry, 52 N.J. 413, The evidence at trial included X.D.'s and J.P.S.'s testimony the intruder possessed a weapon they desc......
-
State v. Belony
... ... of any witness." State v. Rivera , 437 ... N.J.Super. 434, 463 (App. Div. 2014). Additionally, the ... prosecutor cannot suggest poverty as the sole motive for ... committing a crime. State v. Mathis , 47 N.J. 455, ... 472 (1966); see State v. Lodzinski , 249 N.J. 116, ... 155 (2021) ... Moreover, ... without the court's approval, it is improper for a ... prosecutor to urge the jury to infer the defendant's ... failure to call witnesses at trial raises an inference that ... he fears exposure ... ...
-
State v. Husein
...to enter a judgment of acquittal even after the return of a verdict of guilty, when the evidence does not rationally support a conviction." Ibid. "The power enter a judgment of acquittal cannot be invoked because a judge has a mere difference of opinion with the outcome of a trial; it can b......