The Jersey Lawyer

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently held in the case of State v. Whitaker, that a defendant cannot be found guilty of felony murder and robbery for a murder committed during a theft unless he shared the intent of the person who actually committed the theft before or at the time the theft was committed.  Defendant’s thirty-year sentence was overturned in this case because the prosecutor improperly argued to the jury that they could find defendant guilty of felony murder for helping the primary actor in discarding the gun, even if the defendant did not share the primary actor’s intent to commit the robbery or shoot the victim.  As this case shows, criminal charges can have serious consequences and it is important for a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer to make sure that the correct standards and laws are being applied in Court.  Therefore, anyone charged with a crime in New Jersey should consult with a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer.

In this case, defendant Quadir Whitaker and Greg Davis spotted Seth Hernandez while drunk on a street in Freehold, New Jersey.  Davis started walking after Hernandez with defendant Whitaker following a short distance behind.  When Davis reached Hernandez, he tapped him on the shoulder intending to rob Hernandez.  Hernandez turned around and took a swing at Davis, at which time Davis pulled out a nine millimeter handgun and shot Hernandez.  Defendant and Davis then fled from the scene to a friend’s house.  While fleeing from the scene, a witness heard defendant say to Davis  “yo, you got to put it up,” meaning that Davis had to discard the murder weapon.   Defendant said in a statement that he did not know that Davis intended to either rob or kill Hernandez.

The prosecutor argued during summation that defendant’s statement while fleeing the scene was a direction to Davis to discard the murder weapon.  The prosecutor then argued to the jury that the statement could be used by the jury as evidence that defendant knew about the plan to rob Hernandez from the very beginning.  Alternatively, the prosecutor told the jury that they could also find defendant guilty of robbery and felony murder even if defendant did not share Davis’s purpose to rob Hernandez or participate in the shooting so long as he aided Davis in discarding the gun.  Based on the prosecutor’s argument, the jury convicted defendant of both robbery and felony murder.  The Appellate Division reversed the conviction and the New Jersey  Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Division that the trial court had committed error by not properly instructing the jury.

Under the New Jersey Criminal Code, an accomplice is legally responsible for the conduct of a person who actually commits the criminal act, so long as the accomplice acts with a purposeful state of mind in furtherance of the crime.  However, an accomplice is only guilty of the same crime as the principal actor if the accomplice had the same state of mind as the principal actor because a defendant’s state of mind is an essential element to most crimes.  If the accomplice does not have the requisite state of mind for a particular crime, then the accomplice cannot be found guilty of that crime. 

The crimes of “theft” or “robbery,” are “specific intent” crimes in New Jersey.  This means that in order for a person to be found guilty of “theft” or “robbery,” he must act with the specific intent to steal.  Thus, in this case, defendant Whitaker could only be an accomplice to the robbery committed by Davis if he shared Davis’s specific intent to rob Hernandez, that is, if defendant had the purpose of promoting or facilitating the robbery.  In order for defendant to be found guilty of felony murder as an accomplice, he would also have to know that Davis was armed prior to Davis committing the robbery.  

In this case, defendant could only be found guilty of robbery and felony-murder as an accomplice, if he intended to promote or facility the robbery before or at the time that Davis committed the robbery and murder.   Under the New Jersey Criminal Code, there is no accomplice liability for assisting in the flight of a robber when the defendant does not share the same criminal intent as his confederate.   Accordingly, the Supreme Court determined that the trial court had erred in not properly instructing the jury and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a new trial.

As this case illustrates, it is particularly important for a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer to make sure that the trial court appropriately instructs the jury on the law.  A mistake in the instruction of the jury can have disastrous consequences.  Therefore, anyone charged with a crime in New Jersey should contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for assistance.