State v. Medina

• Decision Date: 05 December 1996
• Citation: 147 N.J. 43,685 A.2d 1242
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Domingo R. MEDINA, a/k/a Domingo Rivera, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edward F. FARMER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 43

147 N.J. 43

685 A.2d 1242

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Domingo R. MEDINA, a/k/a Domingo Rivera, Defendant-Appellant.

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edward F. FARMER, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Oct. 24, 1995.

Decided Dec. 5, 1996.

Stephen W. Kirsch, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, for appellant Domingo R. Medina, etc., (Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, attorney).

Robert L. Sloan, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, for appellant Edward F. Farmer, (Susan L. Reisner, Public Defender, attorney).

Roseann A. Finn, Assistant Prosecutor, for respondent (Edward F. Borden, Jr., Camden County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Finn and Jack L. Weinberg, Assistant Prosecutor, on the letter briefs).

Catherine A. Foddai, Deputy Attorney General, for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (Deborah T. Poritz, Attorney General, attorney).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

POLLOCK, J.

The issue is whether the jury instructions in these cases satisfied the requirements of due process in explaining that the State bears the burden of proving defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After consolidating the cases, the Appellate Division affirmed the convictions of both defendants. We affirm both judgments.

I. State v. Medina

On the night of June 14, 1990, Jose Torres and Michael Babilonia drove to a Camden apartment building where their friend Jimmy Rivera lived. When Babilonia beeped the car horn, Rivera's girlfriend, Melissa, came to the window and said that Rivera was sleeping. Babilonia continued to beep the car horn and cursed at Melissa.

Defendant, Domingo Medina, who had been in the building, confronted Babilonia and Torres. Medina accused Torres of "being with" Medina's girlfriend, Anna, and of calling Medina a "pussy." Torres denied Medina's allegations.

Medina then pulled a handgun from the front pocket of his sweatshirt and pulled back the slide. Nervous, Torres began retreating. Medina threatened to shoot Torres if he continued walking. Torres continued. Medina followed him for half a block. Medina repeated his threat, but Torres continued to retreat. Medina fired five shots at Torres. Three of the bullets struck Torres, one in the lower back and two in the right buttock. The gunshots caused severe injury to Torres' diaphragm, liver, bladder, and sigmoid colon. At the hospital, Torres told a hospital worker that Medina had shot him.

Police questioned Medina about the shooting. After they advised him of his Miranda rights, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), Medina admitted that he had pointed a gun at Torres, that the gun was loaded, that he had cocked the gun, and that he had followed Torres up the street. He stated, however, that he had not intended to shoot Torres but that the handgun had discharged accidentally five times.

A Camden County grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Medina, charging him with: second-degree aggravated assault, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1) (count one); fourth-degree aggravated assault, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(4) (count two); third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (count three); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (count four); third-degree terroristic threats, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3b (count five); and attempted murder, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and 2C:11-3 (count six).

During the charge to the jury, the trial court explained the State's burden of proof:

This defendant, as I've said on more than one occasion previously, is presumed innocent. He is presumed innocent when he is indicted, he is presumed innocent throughout trial, he is presumed innocent at this moment and will be presumed innocent when you begin your deliberations. And that presumption does not fade or extinguish until 12 of you agree that he is guilty of something. And in order for you to be persuaded to that the State must meet its burden of proof. And it's the State's burden of proof to prove to you every element of each offense beyond a reasonable doubt. And when we talk about a reasonable doubt we mean doubt from which a reason can be given, a doubt which arises from a fair and rational consideration of the evidence or perhaps the lack of evidence, it means a doubt as would cause a man of ordinary prudence to pause or hesitate when called upon to act in the most important aspects of life. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt that is merely fanciful or speculative such as a skeptical mind might suggest. A doubt which ignores a reasonable interpretation of the evidence or which arises merely from sympathy or perhaps from fear to return a verdict of guilt is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not merely a doubt such as may be conjured up in the mind of someone desiring to escape the responsibility of making a decision. While it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you do not search for doubt, you search for truth. And you give the defendant the benefit of a reasonable doubt if it arises in your minds after you have carefully considered all the evidence in the case. Reasonable doubt is not a mere possibility or imaginary doubt because as we all know, everything relating to human affairs or indeed depending upon oral evidence is open to some imaginary uncertainty as to the guilt of the defendant existing in your minds after you have given full and impartial consideration to all the evidence. It may arise from the evidence or it may arise from an absence of evidence. [emphasis added].

Medina did not object to the instruction. The jury convicted him of second-degree aggravated assault, fourth-degree aggravated assault, second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and third-degree terroristic threats. It found him not guilty of the charges of second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, and attempted murder. The court sentenced Medina to an aggregate term of ten years with a five-year parole disqualifier.

Before the Appellate Division, Medina claimed that the charge violated his right to due process and a fair trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitutions and Article I, Paragraphs 1, 9 and 10 of the New Jersey Constitution. The Appellate Division affirmed. We granted certification, 140 N.J. 275, 658 A.2d 299 (1995).

A.

In a criminal prosecution, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every element of an offense. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 375 (1970). The due process clauses of the Federal Constitution, Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277-78, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2080-81, 124 L. Ed.2d 182, 188 (1993); Winship, supra, 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. at 1072-73, 25 L.Ed.2d at 375; United States v. Pine, 609 F.2d 106, 107 (3d Cir.1979); and the New Jersey Constitution State v. Anderson, 127 N.J. 191, 200-01, 603 A.2d 928 (1992) compel this standard.

Under the Sixth Amendment, the jury, not the court, determines guilt in a serious criminal case. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1447-48, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968); Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 105-06, 15 S.Ct. 273, 294-95, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895). Due process mandates that "the jury verdict required by the Sixth Amendment is a jury verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Sullivan, supra, 508 U.S. at 278, 113 S.Ct. at 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d at 188. A jury instruction that fails to communicate the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not amenable to harmless-error analysis and requires reversal. Id. at 278-81, 113 S.Ct. at 2081-83, 124 L.Ed.2d at 189-90.

The reasonable-doubt standard provides "concrete substance for the presumption of innocence," and reduces the risk of wrongful conviction. Winship, supra, 397 U.S. at 363, 90 S.Ct. at 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d at 375. It assures that a defendant will not be convicted if reasonable doubt exists about his or her guilt. Id. at 363-64, 90 S.Ct. at 1072-73, 25 L.Ed.2d at 375.

Notwithstanding its venerated role, the standard is problematic. As the United States Supreme Court recently lamented, "[a]lthough this standard is an ancient and honored aspect of our criminal justice system, it defies easy explication." Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, ----, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 1242, 127 L.Ed.2d 583, 590 (1994). Neither the New Jersey Constitution nor the Federal Constitution explicitly demands that trial courts define reasonable doubt. Both constitutions require only that the trial court inform the jury of the State's burden to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Neither constitution defines reasonable doubt. Understandably, trial courts have struggled in explaining the State's burden. This Court has cautioned "trial courts against using any charge that has a tendency to 'understate[ ]' or 'trivialize the awesome duty of the jury to determine whether the defendant's guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.' " State v. Biegenwald, 106 N.J. 13, 41, 524 A.2d 130 (1987) (quoting Commonwealth v. Ferreira, 373 Mass. 116, 364 N.E.2d 1264, 1272 (1977)); accord State v. Purnell, 126 N.J. 518, 544-45, 601 A.2d 175 (1992). Some federal circuit courts of appeal have instructed district courts not to try to define the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard because the definitions are frequently either unhelpful or inaccurate. See, e.g., United States v. Adkins, 937 F.2d 947, 950 (4th Cir.1991) ("This circuit has repeatedly warned against giving the jury definitions of reasonable doubt, because definitions tend to impermissibly lessen the burden of proof.... The only exception to our categorical disdain for definition is when the jury specifically requests it."); United States v. Hall, 854 F.2d 1036, 1039 (7th Cir.1988) (upholding district court's refusal to provide definition,...