State v. Samuels

Decision Date31 January 2007
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Brian W. SAMUELS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

James K. Smith, Jr., Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smiths Segars, Public Defender, attorney).

Mary R. Juliano, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Luis A. Valentin, Monmouth County Prosecutor, attorney).

Lora B. Glick, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae, Attorney General of New Jersey (Anne Milgram, Acting Attorney General, attorney).

Justice LONG delivered the opinion of the Court.

Pursuant to an indictment returned by a Monmouth County Grand Jury, defendant, Brian Samuels and his co-defendant, Godfred Mainhooh (a.k.a. Rahim), were charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count one); first-degree armed robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1 (count two); second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (count three); and fourth-degree aggravated assault by pointing a firearm contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(4) (count four). Defendant also was charged individually with second-degree unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b (count six), and third-degree resisting arrest, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2a (count ten).1 Because Mainhooh had absented himself, defendant was tried alone.

At trial, the testimony elicited on behalf of the State was as follows: On May 4, 2000, the Long Branch Police Department conducted a narcotics investigation in which they attempted to purchase narcotics from an individual named "Rahim." The police first secured two adjacent hotel rooms (room numbers 229 and 230) on the second floor of the Fountains Motel in Long Branch. Officers Pilone and Roebuck were stationed in Room 229. Two backup officers (Magarino and Shea) were stationed in Room 230 and an additional officer, Morey, was positioned on the roof of the motel. In addition, marked and unmarked patrol cars were stationed near the motel complex.

Around ten o'clock that night, Pilone placed a telephone call from Room 229 to Rahim, the subject of the investigation, Pilone identified himself as "Jimmy" and explained that they had met at "Mommas House" on Fourth Avenue in Asbury Park.

Pilone testified:

I told him I had a dope habit, a heroin habit. I told him I needed two bundles of heroin and the rest of the — we had $1200 to spend. I needed two bundles of heroin, which is 20 decks of heroin, and the rest I wanted in crack cocaine because we were having some type of party and my friends wanted crack cocaine.

Pilone advised Rahim where he could be found and asked him to deliver the drugs. Rahim agreed to provide the drugs within a half-hour. Minutes later, Rahim called the motel switchboard and reached room 229, confirming Pilone's presence there. Pilone told Rahim to "bring [him] good stuff, or good product." Rahim responded, "Don't worry I'll take care of you" and told Pilone to look for him to arrive in a cab.

None of the officers saw Rahim arrive at the motel. However, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Officer Morey alerted the others that two men were coming up the staircase leading to room 229. They were defendant and co-defendant Mainhooh. As the men walked along the second-floor balcony of the motel, they appeared to be conversing and checking the numbers on the doors of the rooms. Morey did not see either man with a weapon.

Mainhooh knocked on the door of room 229. Pilone looked through the peephole, saw him, and inquired, "Who?" The reply was "Rahim." Pilone alerted the members of his group that they were moving in. Roebuck opened the door, Pilone "cut in front of him" and "rushed out," "yelling police, police, police." He was wearing a t-shirt with a police decal, a badge on a lanyard around his neck, a gun belt, handcuffs, and a police radio. Pilone explained:

I rush out. I'm yelling, police, police, police. I see, as I am entering the doorway, I see Rahim, and off to my right I see Mr. Samuels standing off to the right.

As I am nearing Rahim, my intent was to grab him. I look and I notice that he is, in his right hand he is holding what I believe to be [9] mm pistol, automatic weapon.

. . . .

At the time it was [pointed] at my chest, and I was already committed. I was already moving forward. There is nothing I could do. If I stopped, backed up, he would have time to shoot me.

I kind of ducked a little bit. I knocked his hand up and I pushed him back against the railing.

. . . .

He was aiming like this. As I am coming out yelling police, he had this look of surprise on his face. He started backing up. As he is backing up, the gun is coming up from my chest up towards my face. That's when I kind of leaned over, ducked down, whatever I did.

. . . .

Pilone quickly pinned Mainhooh against the railing. At that point, defendant grabbed Pilone and struggled with him, allowing Mainhooh to flee. Pilone pulled defendant into room 229 where they fell to the floor and wrestled for approximately a minute and a half before defendant was placed in handcuffs. After defendant was secured, Pilone stated to him that he knew that defendant and Mainhooh were there to sell drugs. Defendant replied, "[w]e don't have any drugs; we don't have any drugs." (emphasis added).

While Pilone struggled with and arrested defendant, Roebuck chased Mainhooh. Magarino and Shea blocked the stairway, forcing Mainhooh to the end of the balcony, where he was cornered. Mainhooh hesitated "for a second, and then . . . jumped over the balcony just as Officer Shea grabbed his sweatshirt." He got up and fled through the back parking lot of the motel.

Roebuck, Shea and Magarino ran down the stairs in pursuit of Mainhooh. Roebuck saw Mainhooh throw something in the parking lot and heard a "metallic clatter like something heavy metal hitting the pavement." Roebuck and the others later apprehended Mainhooh in the woods. After the arrest, Roebuck found a loaded and cocked nine-millimeter semi-automatic Astra handgun in the parking lot where he had heard the metal object hit the pavement. No drugs were found.

Although Pilone had testified, without objection, that he told defendant that he knew defendant was there to sell drugs, at trial Pilone stated that "[t]hey weren't there to sell me narcotics; they were there to rob me." Pilone admitted however that he neither reported the crime as a robbery nor discussed robbery in his testimony before the grand jury.

Pilone also testified that he had been involved in "hundreds" of narcotics arrests and had special training in narcotics. He explained that "[t]here [are] no certainties in narcotics. You could order drugs; they may bring your drugs or they may try to rob you, to try to get the money from you." He also admitted the "possibility" of drug dealers themselves being robbed.

Defendant, who testified at trial, gave a much different account of the events of May 4, 2000. According to him, he ran into Mainhooh around 10:30 p.m. outside a liquor store in Asbury Park. Although not friends, defendant and Mainhooh "knew each other from the block." Mainhooh told defendant that he needed to "take a ride" with him. Defendant testified that he never asked what he and Mainhooh were going to do and that for "all [he knew], Mainhooh was going to see a houseful of girls." When they caught a cab, defendant learned that they were taking a round-trip ride to Long Branch, several towns away. Defendant testified that he fell asleep in the cab and awoke when they arrived at the Fountains Motel. Upon arrival, defendant walked around the motel with Mainhooh, eventually reaching Room 229. After hearing the "who" and "Rahim" exchange that occurred between Mainhooh and Pilone, defendant, who was standing near Mainhooh, saw three men come out of the motel room. Defendant, who acknowledged that he had a crackpipe in his possession, denied that Mainhooh had a gun in his hand and also denied having jumped on Pilone or engaged in a scuffle.

Defendant was convicted of conspiring with Mainhooh to commit armed robbery, armed robbery, possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest. The charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was dismissed. The trial judge sentenced defendant to an aggregate custodial term of fifty years with seventeen years of parole ineligibility.

Defendant appealed, claiming among other things, that there was inadequate evidence to support the conspiracy and armed robbery counts; that the trial judge should have charged the jury with the lesser included offense of attempted robbery; and that the jury instructions were incorrect and so confusing as to have led the jury into error. The Appellate Division affirmed with respect to those issues,2 and defendant filed a petition for certification. We granted that petition, State v. Samuels, 186 N.J. 244, 892 A.2d 1291 (2006), and the Attorney General of New Jersey's request for leave to appear amicus curiae.

II.

Defendant argues that the conspiracy and armed robbery counts should have been dismissed or a judgment of acquittal granted because the evidence fell short of what was necessary to sustain those convictions; that an attempted robbery charge was clearly indicated by defendant's testimony that Mainhooh did not display a gun; and that the incorrect and confusing instructions on conspiracy and accomplice liability misled the jury.

The State counters that, with all favorable inferences, the circumstantial evidence in the case warranted the convictions for conspiracy and robbery, and that any errors in the jury instruction were harmless. The Attorney General's arguments generally mirror those of the State except that the Attorney General also argues that the attempted robbery charge was not clearly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 cases
  • State v. Canfield
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 10, 2022
  • State v. Lodzinski
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • May 26, 2021
    ...before this Court. 6 The Court's articulation of the test for a post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal in State v. Samuels, 189 N.J. 236, 245, 914 A.2d 1250 (2007) -- that the court deciding such a motion should "confine [its] analysis of the adequacy of the evidence to the State's......
  • State v. Campione
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • February 24, 2020
    ... ... The State contends that such a violation of PALA provides the basis for criminal liability. We are unpersuaded by this argument. "[T]he agreement to commit a specific crime is at the heart of a conspiracy charge." State v. Samuels , 189 N.J. 236, 245, 914 A.2d 1250 (2007). "It is the agreement that is pivotal." Id. at 246, 914 A.2d 1250 (citation omitted). To sustain a charge of conspiracy the State must demonstrate an "overt act." N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(d). Here, the superseding indictment listed five overt acts that it alleged ... ...
  • State v. Fair
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 19, 2022
    ... ... conspiracy is proved to have been done by him or by a person ... with whom he conspired ... [N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2(d)] ...          "Actual ... commission of the crime is not a prerequisite to conspirator ... liability." State v. Samuels , 189 N.J. 236, ... 245-46 (2007). "Intervention is permitted to prevent ... completion of a planned crime and facilitating prosecutions ... that strike 'against the special dangers of group ... criminal activity.'" Id. at 246 (quoting ... State v. Hardison , 99 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • § 29.04 Conspiracy: The Agreement
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 29 Conspiracy
    • Invalid date
    .... . and from the circumstances surrounding the commission of these acts") (internal quotations and citations omitted); State v. Samuels, 914 A.2d 1250, 1255 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 2007) ("Because the conduct and words of co-conspirators is generally shrouded in 'silence, furtiveness and secrecy,' t......
  • § 29.04 CONSPIRACY: THE AGREEMENT
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 29 Conspiracy
    • Invalid date
    ...the Law, Note 1, supra, at 933 (footnote omitted).[40] . People v. Persinger, 363 N.E.2d 897, 901 (Ill. App. Ct. 1977); State v. Samuels, 914 A.2d 1250, 1255 (N.J. 2007) ("Because the conduct and words of co-conspirators is generally shrouded in 'silence, furtiveness and secrecy,' the consp......
  • TABLE OF CASES
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...496 Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997), 406 Salsman v. Commonwealth, 565 S.W.2d 638 (Ky. App. 1978), 560 Samuels, State v., 914 A.2d 1250 (N.J. 2007), 406 Sanchez-Dominguez v. State, 318 P.3d 1068 (Nev. 2014), 496 Sanders, People v., 67 Cal. App. 4th 1403 (Ct. App. 1998), 52, 522,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT