State v. Melvin
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 083298, 084603,A-44 September Term 2019,A-13 September Term 2020 |
| Citation | 248 N.J. 321,258 A.3d 1075 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mark MELVIN, Defendant-Appellant. State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michelle Paden-Battle, a/k/a Michelle A. Paden, Mama Michelle, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Tamar Y. Lerer, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Mark Melvin (A-44-19) (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Tamar Y. Lerer, of counsel and on the briefs).
Matthew E. Hanley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent in State v. Mark Melvin (A-44-19) (Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Matthew E. Hanley, of counsel and on the briefs).
Emily M.M. Pirro, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for appellant in State v. Michelle Paden-Battle (A-13-20) (Theodore N. Stephens, II, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Emily M.M. Pirro, of counsel and on the briefs).
Molly O'Donnell Meng, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondent in State v. Michelle Paden-Battle (A-13-20) (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Molly O'Donnell Meng, of counsel and on the briefs, and Monique Moyse, Designated Counsel, on the briefs).
Sarah D. Brigham, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey in State v. Mark Melvin (A-44-19) and State v. Michelle Paden-Battle (A-13-20) (Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney; Sarah D. Brigham, of counsel and on the brief).
Alexander Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey in State v. Mark Melvin (A-44-19) and State v. Michelle Paden-Battle (A-13-20) (American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation, attorneys; Alexander Shalom, Newark, Jeanne LoCicero, and Karen Thompson, on the brief).
Joseph A. Hayden, Jr., argued the cause for amicus curiae Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey in State v. Mark Melvin (A-44-19) and State v. Michelle Paden-Battle (A-13-20) (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, attorneys; Joseph A. Hayden, Jr., and Dillon J. McGuire, Hackensack, on the brief).
Jonathan Romberg argued the cause for amicus curiae Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice in State v. Michelle Paden-Battle (A-13-20) (Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice, attorneys; Jonathan Romberg, of counsel and on the brief).
One of the most important tenets of our criminal justice system is the finality of a jury's verdict of acquittal. These consolidated appeals test that principle through a common legal issue: whether a trial judge can consider at sentencing a defendant's alleged conduct for crimes for which a jury returned a not guilty verdict.
In State v. Melvin, the jury found Melvin guilty of second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun and, after two trials, not guilty of the most serious charges against him, including first-degree murder and first-degree attempted murder. At his second sentencing, the trial court -- notwithstanding the jury's not-guilty verdicts on the murder charges -- determined that the evidence at trial supported the conclusion that Melvin shot the victims. Citing United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997), the trial judge found that it was within the court's broad discretion at sentencing to consider all circumstances of the case, including evidence that Melvin was the shooter. Despite the jury's verdict, the trial court found that Melvin not only possessed the weapon, but used it to shoot three people. The trial court sentenced Melvin to a term of sixteen years’ imprisonment with an eight-year period of parole ineligibility. The Appellate Division affirmed that sentence.
In State v. Paden-Battle, in a trial before the same judge who presided over Melvin's case, the jury found Paden-Battle guilty of kidnapping, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and felony murder. The jury acquitted Paden-Battle of the remaining seven counts, including first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. At sentencing, the trial judge again relied on Watts to make findings of fact, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Paden-Battle, despite having been acquitted of the most serious murder charges, was the mastermind who orchestrated the victim's murder. The trial court stated that Paden-Battle falsified her testimony and found that she was the moving force behind the murder and ordered her co-conspirators to act. The trial court sentenced Paden-Battle to a sixty-year sentence. On appeal, the Appellate Division vacated Paden-Battle's sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing, holding that the trial court enhanced her sentence based on its belief -- a belief contrary to the jury's verdict -- that Paden-Battle ordered the execution.
We granted the petitions for certification in both cases and now reverse in Melvin and affirm in Paden-Battle. Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution bestows upon all citizens certain natural and unalienable rights. From those rights flows the doctrine of fundamental fairness, which "protects against arbitrary and unjust government action." State v. Njango, 247 N.J. 533, 537, 255 A.3d 1164 (2021). For the reasons stated below, we hold today that fundamental fairness prohibits courts from subjecting a defendant to enhanced sentencing for conduct as to which a jury found that defendant not guilty.
We begin by reviewing the facts and procedural history in State v. Melvin.
In September 2012, a masked man wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt entered a Newark restaurant, where he shot and killed two men and injured a woman, the restaurant's owner and cook. The man fled the scene in a green Dodge Magnum until his vehicle ran out of gas. Soon after, police pulled up behind the stopped vehicle and found Mark Melvin in the driver's seat along with another individual seated in the passenger's seat.
When police approached, Melvin exited the vehicle and ran, but police quickly apprehended and arrested him. Police searched the area and recovered two non-matching gloves and a gray hooded sweatshirt from backyards Melvin ran through during the chase. Police recovered from Melvin's vehicle an automatic handgun, one hundred decks of heroin, and a black mask consistent with the one used in the homicides. Ballistic testing confirmed that the handgun recovered from the vehicle matched the gun used in the shooting. In addition, DNA testing confirmed that the blood of one of the victims was found on the gray hooded sweatshirt.
On May 31, 2013, an Essex County Grand Jury charged Melvin in a nine-count indictment with the following: first-degree murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2) (Counts I and V); second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b) (Count II); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a) (Count III); first-degree attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and :11-3 (Count IV); second-degree aggravated assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1) (Count VI); third-degree unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) (heroin), N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) (Count VII); third-degree possession of CDS (heroin) with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and (b)(3) (Count VIII); and third-degree unlawful possession of a CDS (heroin) with the intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (Count IX).1
At trial, the State submitted DNA and ballistic evidence, police testimony, and the testimony of Jahod Marshall, who was the passenger in Melvin's vehicle. Marshall testified that on the morning of the shooting, he was playing basketball when Melvin flagged him down and told him to get into his car. Marshall complied, and the men drove away. Marshall further testified that Melvin parked near the restaurant and exited the car. Marshall then heard gunshots before Melvin rushed back into the vehicle, wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt and carrying a gun, and drove off until the vehicle ran out of gas.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Melvin guilty of second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, but they remained deadlocked on the outstanding counts. Ordinarily, a second-degree offense carries a potential of five to ten years’ imprisonment, but the State motioned the court to sentence Melvin to an extended term based on his criminal history. See N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3(a). Melvin conceded he was eligible for an extended term as a persistent offender, and the court granted the State's motion.
With the discretion to sentence Melvin to an extended term of ten to twenty years, see N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(1), the trial court sentenced Melvin to the maximum -- an aggregate twenty-year prison term with ten years of parole ineligibility. The sentencing judge cited Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633 (1997), and State v. Jarbath, 114 N.J. 394, 412 n.4, 555 A.2d 559 (1989), in his consideration of Melvin's conduct -- specifically, the evidence relating to the murder charges as to which the jury was hung. The sentencing judge determined that "by a preponderance of the credible evidence at trial, ... Melvin did in fact use a firearm, which resulted in the death of [the two victims] and the injury to [the restaurant owner]." Melvin subsequently appealed his conviction and sentence.
In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division affirmed Melvin's conviction for second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun but remanded the matter for resentencing. The court held that the sentencing judge incorrectly applied Watts and Jarbath and that a judge cannot act as a "thirteenth juror" by "substitut[ing] his judgment for that of the jury." The court further noted that "[t]he judge abused his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Caronna
...that our State Constitution "is a source of fundamental rights independent of the United States Constitution." State v. Melvin, 248 N.J. 321, 258 A.3d 1075, 1090 (2021) (citing State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508, 522-23, 511 A.2d 1150 (1986) ). The Federal Constitution, our Supreme Court explai......
-
State v. Thomas
...of existing constitutional protections or as an independent source of protection against state action.’ " State v. Melvin, 248 N.J. 321, 348, 258 A.3d 1075 (2021) (quoting Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 108, 662 A.2d 367 (1995) ). It advances "fairness and fulfillment of reasonable expectations......
-
State v. Langston
...248 N.J. 321, 258 A.3d 1075 (2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey considered claims under the federal and New Jersey constitution. See id., 339. The court held principles of fundamental fairness underlying the state constitutional right to due process prohibited trial courts from subjecti......
-
State v. Lopez
...protections, and our own Constitution affords greater protection for individual rights than its federal counterpart." State v. Melvin, 248 N.J. 321, 258 A.3d 1075 (2021). For example, New Jersey provides greater protection from unreasonable searches and seizures than does the Fourth Amendme......