State v. Concepcion

545 A.2d 119, 111 N.J. 373, 1988 N.J. LEXIS 87

• Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
• Decided: August 8, 1988
• Status: Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Miguel Concepcion, was convicted of reckless manslaughter, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1). He was sentenced to a five-year term, with a three-year parole ineligibility period pursuant to the Graves Act. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(c). The Appellate Division affirmed in an unpublished opinion. We granted certification, 109 N.J. 494 (1987), and we now reverse.

I

The sequence of events leading up to the death of the victim in this case began on the morning of November 14, 1984, in defendant’s living room. Defendant cleaned a gun that he legally possessed as part of his training to become a Newark Special Police Officer. After cleaning it, defendant practiced loading and unloading the gun. He put the loaded gun on a bookshelf to answer a telephone call, and subsequently left his apartment. Defendant returned to his apartment twice during the course of the day but did not touch the gun.

Later that evening, defendant and a friend, David Correa, were driving around the streets of Newark. At approximately 10:30 p.m., defendant and Correa picked up the victim, Jacqueline Jones, who was an acquaintance of Correa. Defendant had not met the victim prior to this encounter.

Defendant, Correa, and the victim then went to defendant’s apartment. At some point, defendant’s brother, Angel Concepcion, joined the group. Once inside the apartment, Angel went to the stereo in the living room and played some music, while Correa started dancing. Defendant toured the apartment with the victim for a few minutes and then returned to the living room, whereupon Correa entered the bathroom.

At trial, conflicting evidence was produced concerning what happened next. Defendant testified that when he came back into the living room with the victim, he saw the victim, out of the corner of his eye, pick up the gun from the bookshelf. Within seconds, according to defendant, he wrestled the gun away from the victim, and as he did, he realized that the gun was cocked. Defendant stated that as he attempted to uncock the gun, he saw the victim’s hand coming towards him and he “just reacted and I lifted the gun, you know, like taking it away, just snatching it up * * * ” and “the gun discharged.”

After hearing the gunshot, Correa ran into the living room from the bathroom to see what happened. Defendant initially told Correa that the victim had shot herself. Defendant also instructed Correa “never to tell anybody that Angel was there.” When Correa called the Newark police to report the incident, he described the shooting as a suicide. Defendant told one of the officers who arrived on the scene that the victim had shot herself. Shortly thereafter, however, defendant recanted this version of the incident when he gave a statement to the police that comported with his testimony at trial. Defendant attributed his initial suicide account to his state of panic and nervousness immediately following the shooting.

Angel Concepcion fled the apartment as soon as he saw what had happened. The following morning he gave a statement to the police in which he stated that defendant “went to get his gun from one of the shelfs [sic ] then the gun went off.” However, at trial Angel testified that he had not actually seen defendant pick up the gun and had not seen any of the events leading up to the shooting because he was facing the stereo the entire time. Explaining the inconsistencies of his prior statement, he stated, “I was assuming because I was trying to figure it all together. I was just assuming that [defendant] had took [sic ] the gun off the shelf but I never saw him pick the gun off the shelf myself.”

II

Defendant argues that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the single count of reckless manslaughter.¹ When evaluating the propriety of a jury charge, an appellate court “does not excise and examine in isolation those statements alleged to be obscure or ambiguous, but looks to the charge as a whole.” State v. Freeman, 64 N.J. 66, 69 (1973); accord State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123, 280 (1987).

In this case, the trial court began the charge by generally discussing the different responsibilities of the court, counsel, and jury in conducting a jury trial. The court then gave more specific instructions regarding the presumption of innocence and the concept of reasonable doubt. Within the reasonable doubt discussion, the trial court stated, “if, for example, the defendant’s contention that the killing of Ms. Jones was accidental, if that causes such a doubt, it is your duty to give him the benefit of the doubt and acquit him.”

In formulating the component of the charge dealing with reckless manslaughter, the trial court tracked the model jury charge and essentially consolidated three provisions of the Criminal Code. Under the Code “[cjriminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when * * * it is committed recklessly * * N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(1). “Recklessly” is defined by N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(3):

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. “Recklessness,” “with recklessness” or equivalent terms have the same meaning.

Further, the Code provides that for a defendant recklessly to have caused a particular result, either the defendant must have been aware he or she risked such a result or the “result must involve the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and must not be too * * * accidental in its occurrence * * N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(c).

It is appropriate to repeat the entire text of the reckless manslaughter component of the charge:

Now, the defendant is charged in the indictment that on the 15th day of November, 1984 in the City of Newark, in the County of Essex aforesaid and within the jurisdiction of this Court he did recklessly kill Jacqueline Jones contrary to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b) and against the peace of this State, the government and dignity of the same. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to this indictment and thus raises the issue of facts to be ultimately determined by you, namely whether the defendant committed the acts alleged by the State in the indictment.

A person is guilty of manslaughter if he recklessly causes the death of another human being. The State in such a case must prove beyond a reasonable doubt two factors: (1) That the defendant caused Jacqueline Jones’ death and (2) that the defendant did so recklessly. With respect to the first element, in order to find the defendant caused Jacqueline Jones’ death, you must find that she would not have died but for the defendant’s conduct. With respect to the second element that the defendant did so recklessly in order to find that the defendant recklessly caused Jacqueline Jones’ death, you must find that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that considering the nature and purpose of the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, his disregard of that risk is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would follow in the same situation. In other words, you must find that the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk or possibility of causing death. If you find that the defendant was aware of and disregarded the risk or possibility of causing death, you must determine whether that risk that he disregarded was substantial and unjustifiable. In doing so, you must consider the nature and the purpose of the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances known to the defendant and you must determine whether in light of those factors, the defendant’s disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from the conduct a reasonable person would have observed in the defendant’s situation.

In 'this regard, you should know that in and of itself, it is not illegal to keep a loaded gun in one’s home. You mil have to determine whether in light of all the circumstances, its presence in the defendant’s home created or presented a substantial and unjustifiable risk which the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded. If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did both in fact cause the death of Jacqueline Jones and did act recklessly in causing that death, then you must find the defendant not guilty. In other words, if you find that the killing of Ms. Jones does not come within the definition of reckless manslaughter as I have instructed you, if you find that her killing was accidental, then the defendant must be acquitted.

On the other hand, if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Miguel Concepcion, recklessly caused the death of Jacqueline Jones then you must find him guilty. [Emphasis supplied.]

The trial court concluded the charge by accurately instructing the jury on assessing the credibility of witnesses and weighing circumstantial and direct evidence.

After deliberating for three-and-one-half hours, the jury asked the court for clarification of the definition of recklessness. The court limited its recharge to a repetition of the statutory definition of manslaughter. The trial court did not repeat its instruction relating to defendant leaving the gun on the bookshelf. After another hour-and-one-half of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

Accurate and understandable jury instructions in criminal cases are essential to a defendant’s right to a fair trial. The trial court has an absolute duty to instruct the jury on the law governing the facts of the case. State v. Butler, 27 N.J. 560, 595 (1958). The charge must provide a “comprehensible explanation of the questions that the jury must determine, including the law of the case applicable to the facts that the jury may find.” State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 287-88 (1981); see also Jurman v. Samuel Braen, Inc., 47 N.J. 586, 591-92 (1966) (“court’s instructions must * * * plainly spell out how the jury should apply the legal principles to the facts * * *.”).

Model jury charges are often helpful to trial courts performing this important function. However, it is not always enough simply to read the applicable provision of the Criminal Code, define the terminology, and set forth the elements of the crime. An instruction that is appropriate in one case may not be sufficient for another case. Ordinarily, the better practice is to mold the instruction in a manner that explains the law to the jury in the context of the material facts of the case. See generally Schwarzer, Communicating with Juries: Problems and Remedies, 69 Cal.L.Rev. 731, 741 (1981) (reviewing studies evaluating the efficacy of jury charges and recommending “against the use of abstract statements of legal principles and for the use of instructions phrased as concrete statements of the questions to be decided, incorporating the evidentiary context of persons, places, thing and events disclosed at trial.”).

In this regard, it is “well settled in our State that the . trial judge has the right, and oftentimes the duty, to review the testimony and comment upon it, so long as he clearly leaves to the jury * * * the ultimate determination of the facts and the rendering of a just and true verdict on the facts as it finds them.” State v. Laws, 50 N.J. 159, 177 (1967), reargued, 51 , cert. denied, 393 U.S. 971, 89 S.Ct. 408, 21 L.Ed.2d 384 (1968). Incorporating specific evidentiary facts into a jury charge is especially helpful in a protracted trial with conflicting testimony. State v. Parker, 33 N.J. 79, 94 (1960).

In this case, it would have been helpful for the trial court to have explained to the jury that it had to make a preliminary finding concerning what occurred in defendant’s living room on the night of the shooting. Then based on that finding, the jury should have been told to measure all of defendant’s relevant conduct against the legal standard for reckless manslaughter. Therefore, the jury should have been instructed to evaluate the state of mind defendant possessed throughout the entire sequence of relevant events, which included leaving the gun on the bookcase, bringing a group of people into his apartment, allowing them into the living room although a loaded gun was there, and the manner in which he handled the gun, i.e., the way he tried to wrestle it from the victim before the victim was shot.

The trial court was too selective in mentioning only defendant’s conduct in leaving the loaded gun on the bookshelf. The jury heard extended testimony concerning the firearms training defendant had received in connection with his efforts to become a special police officer. This, in conjunction with the court’s instruction that the jury had to determine “whether in light of all the circumstances, [the gun’s] presence in defendant’s home created or presented a substantial and unjustifiable risk which the defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded,” incorrectly narrowed the focus of the jury’s attention. The defendant’s version of the facts, if believed by the jury, attributed the shooting to the unintentional discharge of the weapon as defendant wrestled the gun from the victim. Nevertheless, in attempting to explain its charge to the jury in the context of the testimony, the trial court omitted any mention of defendant’s attempt to regain control of the weapon, restricting its explanatory comments to the reasonableness of defendant’s conduct in leaving a loaded gun accessible to others in his apartment. By selectively interpreting its charge to the jury in relation to one aspect only of the critical events, the trial court may have misled the jury and influenced it to return a guilty verdict based solely on that conduct.

Moreover, the jury’s request for reinstruction suggests that some members of the jury did not understand sufficiently the concept of recklessness. Rather than repeating the abstract definition that left the jury uncertain in the first place, the trial court might have explained “recklessly” by comparing it with other mental states, such as purposely (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(1), knowingly (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(2), and negligently (N.J.S.A. 2C:2-2(b)(4). The jury’s understanding of these distinctions could have been enhanced if these mental states had been clarified by illustrative examples. On balance, we are persuaded that the charge in the context of the evidence in this case was not sufficient.

Because the charge in this case inadequately guided the jury in performing the critical task of determining defendant’s guilt or innocence, we reverse the conviction and remand the matter to the Law Division for a new trial.

1 He also argues that his sentence must be vacated because the Graves Act cannot apply to the facts of this case. In view of our conclusion that the charge was inadequate, we do not reach the Graves Act issue.