Murder Conviction Reversed For Lack of Passion Provocation Consideration

Fernando Carrero was charged with the first-degree murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1), (2)); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)); third-degree possession of a handgun without the requisite permit (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); and third-degree hindering apprehension (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3(b)(1)). Pretrial hearings led to the admission of the revolver used to murder the victim, Jason Hall; evidence that the Defendant had been abusive and controlling toward his girlfriend; statements by the Defendant to the police; and a statement by the victim to a third party. Carrero was convicted by a jury of all counts and sentenced to life in prison. At trial, testimony was presented indicating the Defendant and Lowenstein were involved in a romantic relationship wherein he became controlling, jealous and paranoid. At one point, after he repeatedy struck her for “lying” when he questioned her about her friends Jason Hall and Hicks, Lowenstein provided Carrero with the answer he wanted which was that Hall had set Carrero up. Hall and Carrero were alone together some time later at Lowenstein’s family residence and Hall began to provoke the Defendant after entering the kitchen to find Carerro and Lowenstein kissing with her hands around Carerro’s waist. Lowenstein left the room to locate her parents and heard a gunshot. She returned to the room to find Hall on the floor and Carrero pointing a gun at Hall. In spite of Lowenstein’s pleas and physical efforts to prevent harm to Hall, Carrero shot Hall in the head. The Defendant’s account was that, after Lowenstein left the room, Hall threatened him and pulled the gun from his waistband. Carrero testified that the original gunshot occurred during the struggle wherein Carrero wrestled the gun from Hall’s hand. Carrero further testified that he did not intend to shoot Hall and never had his finger on the trigger but the gun accidentally went off when Lowenstein attempted to physically prevent him from shooting Hall. Hicks was in the basement below during the incident and claimed to have heard yelling and “thumping” noises and arrived upstairs to see Carrero flee with a gun in his hand. Newark Police later located the Defendant with the murder weapon. Carrero challenged on multiple grounds including the denial of his request for a passion/provocation manslaughter (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(2)) charge to the jury; the admission of hearsay; the gravity of his sentence and the admission of prior-bad-acts he was involved in. The N.J. Appellate Division found that a fair trial requires proper jury charges pursuant to State v. Daniels, 224 N.J. 168 (2016), and that if there is evidence supporting the possibility that a jury could reasonably acquit the Defendant of the original charges but find the Defendant guilty of the lesser included charge then a plenary review of the reason for the denial of the lesser included charge is required under State v. Brent, 137 N.J. 107 (1994). Even when a lesser included charge is inconsistent with the defense’s theory of the case it should be offered as an option for the jury if the evidence at trial supports it. State v. Castagna, 376 N.J. Super. 323, 356 (App. Div. 2005); State v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402 (1990); State v. Taylor; 350 N.J. Super. 20 (App. Div. 2002). In the case of State v. Carrero, a passion/provocation manslaughter charge, defined under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(b)(2) as a homicide which is committed in the heat of passion with reasonable provocation, should have been offered for the jury’s consideration. The four elements required to establish passion/provocation murder are adequate provocation; the provocation and the actions of Defendant had to occur proximately; the Defendant had to actually become impassioned by the provocation of the victim; and the Defendant must not have calmed down prior to acting against the victim. Mauricio, supra, 117 N.J. at 411. Although a passion/provocation charge is inconsistent with the Defendant’s self-defense theory, it is nonetheless an appropriate jury charge under the evidence presented, including that Hall was trying to provoke Carrero immediately before Hall was shot. The N.J. Appellate Division found that the trial court was incorrect in finding that a passion/provocation charge should not be presented because inconsistencies in the charges presented could confuse the jurors. Further, the Appellate panel found there was a rational basis to support the passion/provocation charge as there was evidence presented of threats, a struggle, Lowenstein’s testimony that her hands were around Carrerro’s waist immediately prior to the incident, and the Defendant’s testimony that Hall was the one who had the gun initially. Based on their findings, the Appellate panel reversed and remanded the matter for a new trial rendering the Defendant’s other points on appeal moot. If you are facing murder charges you are looking at a sentence of 30 years to life and even for lesser included offenses the sentence can be the same as life in prison depending on your age at sentencing. When confronting such charges, it is imperative that you have experienced and trusted criminal defense counsel at your side to ensure you have the best chance possible in fighting the case and protecting your rights. For more information about murder, aggravated manslaughter, assault or weapons charges in New Jersey visit DarlingFirm.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Murder Conviction Reversed On Prejudicial Hearsay

Stephen Scharf was convicted of first-degree purposeful and knowing murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1) and (2)) for the murder of his wife, Jody Scharf. Stephen and Jody Scharf were together at the top of the Englewood Cliffs in Bergen County. The defendant contacted the police indicating Jody Scharf must have slipped from Rockefeller Lookout atop the cliffs when he returned to their vehicle to obtain a blanket. The body of Jody Scharf was later located at the bottom of the cliffs, a distance of 52 feet from the base horizontally. The defendant was interviewed by police and the parties' son corroborated his story but also added that the night prior to Jody Scharf's death, he had accompanied them to a late dinner as his mother did not wish to be alone with his father upon whom she had recently served divorce papers claiming abuse and adultery. Both of the parties' sons also provided details of their mother's fear of heights with regard to the notion of her interest in going to the edge of the cliffs. In addition to the fact that Jody Scharf had filed for divorce, the defendant stood to receive $500,000 in life insurance proceeds from her death. In State v. Scharf, pre-trial motions to suppress hearsay testimony from Jody Scharf's counselor and friends were denied based on the judge's reliance on State v. Benedetto, 120 N.J. 250 (1990) and N.J.R.E. 803(c)(3) and the jury was permitted to hear statements about the likelihood defendant murdered Jody Scharf or that she had been afraid of him. The prosecution and defense offered conflicting testimony as to how the body ended up 52 feet from the base of the cliffs. Two of defendant's paramours contradicted Sharf's claims to police that he and Jody Scharf were attempting to reconcile and had terminated relationships with them. Defendant appealed the guilty verdict in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County and the sentence of life in prison with a 30-year parole ineligibility period. The NJ Appellate Division considered defendant's challenge to the hearsay evidence admitted below under N.J.R.E. 401 with regard to the weight of prejudice against the weight of probative value and N.J.R.E. 801(c) pertaining directly to hearsay defined as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." The Appellate Division referenced State v. Calleia, 206 N.J. 274 (2011) wherein the court considered statements of fear which had the danger of creating an inference of violence as an ongoing part of the relationship between the victim and defendant against the introduction of statements to establish the defendant's motive to commit the crime. Ultimately, motive evidence was held to be admissible as a "material issue in a case." Id. at 293-294, provided that the danger of prejudice by the statement offered does not outweigh the probative value. In this balancing, it is the burden of the party seeking exclusion of the statement to establish that it is more likely to be prejudicial than probative. State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383,453 (1998). Pursuant to Calleia, the State must then show that the accused was most likely aware of the decedent's statement. The NJ Appellate Division determined the statements offered were "neither relevant nor material" and that they were "highly prejudicial and clearly cumulative." The court held that the victims fear of defendant did not make it any more or less likely that she slipped and fell off the cliff to which she voluntarily accompanied the defendant, especially in light of the fact that the autopsy did reveal that she was clearly under the influence of alcohol while on the edge of the cliff. Ultimately, the NJ Appellate Division determined that the defendant had quite possibly been deprived of a fair trial and reversed and remanded the matter for a retrial. If you are facing charges of murder you are looking at a sentence of 30 years to life and even for lesser included offenses the sentence can be the same as life in prison depending on your age at sentencing. When confronting such charges, it is imperative that you have experienced and trusted criminal defense counsel at your side to ensure you have the best chance possible in fighting the case and protecting your rights. For more information about murder, aggravated manslaughter, assault or weapons charges in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Reversal of Manslaughter Conviction After Jury Accesses Taped Statement

Matthew Craddock was convicted of first-degree aggravated manslaughter (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4(a)(1)), as a lesser included offense of murder charges, for the stabbing death of James Grace, who was dating Craddock's ex-girlfriend, M.P. He was also convicted of third-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(d)) and fourth-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(d)). At trial, in addition to other evidence presented, the jury heard the defendant's entire taped confession to the police as well as a voicemail the defendant left on his girlfriend's phone after the incident. Testimony for the State was also provided by M.P., her friend L.A., and L.A.'s fiance' Mi.P who all witnessed the altercation between Craddock and Grace. None actually witnessed the actual stabbing but they did hear Grace yell "he stabbed me" and one saw the defendant throw an object that appeared to be a knife handle into the road. The defendant offered a different version of the facts than the others and claimed his actions were in self-defense as an altercation erupted when he was attempting to retrieve M.P.'s cell phone from another individual, Grace, who the defendant believed had stolen the phone. Craddock was sentenced to an aggregate 24-year term with an eighty-five percent parole ineligibility period under the No Early Release Act (NERA)(N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2). Craddock appealed based on the admission of the taped statements without redaction under claim that certain information in the recordings was more prejudicial than probative. In State v. Craddock, the NJ Appellate Division considered the holding in State v. Burr, 195 N.J. 119 (2008) wherein it was determined that allowing a jury full access to a videotaped statement had the potential for great prejudice. In State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109 (2011) the court held that the review, by the jury, of taped statements should be undertaken in court where parties are present and judges my provide jury instructions with regard to portions replayed. Finally, in State v. A.R., 213 N.J. 542 (2013) the court held that the jury should not have unfettered access to audio or videotaped statements during deliberations. Once the appellate division determined that the trial court erred in providing the jury with unfettered access to the taped statements, it was further determined that the potential prejudice to the defendant from the jury's access to the statements was not harmless error and the conviction was reversed with the matter remanded to the trial court for a new trial. If you are facing charges of murder, manslaughter or weapons charges, you are facing severe penalties including as much as life in prison. When confronting criminal charges, it is imperative that you have experienced criminal defense counsel at your side to ensure you are afforded due process and your rights are protected. For more information about murder, manslaughter, weapons offenses or other serious crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.

Murder Conviction Cannot Stand on Cumulative Trial Errors

Jahnell Weaver and Khalil Bryant were in attendance at a graduation party in Camden, NJ where someone pulled a gun and fired 5 shots killing Edward Williams and wounding Amyr Hill. Although only one individual could have fired the gun, both Hill and Weaver were implicated by others at the party. Jahnell Weaver and Khalil Bryant were juveniles but both were charged as adults with first-degree murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(a)(1)(2)); first-degree attempted murder (N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and 2C:11-3); second-degree aggravated assault (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)); third-degree assault with a deadly weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2)); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4(a)); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon (N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5(b)); and third-degree endangering an injured victim (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1.2). At trial, the only significant dispute was weather Weaver or Bryant was the shooter. Both Weaver and Bryant were seen with guns at the party. Hill identified Bryant as the shooter then changed his testimony while other witnesses offered conflicting testimony. Weaver offered that Bryant later used the same weapon in a shooting as a defense and Weaver moved for a separate trial. The court denied Weaver’s application to admit other crimes evidence regarding Bryant’s shooting of another individual shortly after the incident in question due to the substantial prejudice it would cause against Bryant as well as denying Weaver’s request for a separate trial. The State was able to admit Bryant’s statement that he received the gun immediately after the shooting in question. However, because Bryant did not testify, Weaver did not have the opportunity to cross-examine him with regard to the statement. Lamike Goffney, an eyewitness, saw one of the men fleeing the scene hand the gun to another man fleeing the scene and other evidence in the trial led the jury to the conclusion that Bryant then received the weapon from Weaver. Weaver was ultimately convicted and appealed. After the NJ Appellate Division upheld the decision of the trial court, State v. Weaver was heard by the NJ Supreme Court. The NJ Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Division and remanded the matter for a new trial based on the potential prejudice to Weaver as a result of the cumulative errors in denying his request for a separate trial, refusing to allow other crimes evidence and allowing Bryant’s statement to enter without cross-examination. The penalty for murder is severe including 30 years to life in prison. If you are facing homicide charges, you need experienced criminal defense counsel to protect your rights. For more information about murder, homicide, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, assault, assault with a deadly weapon or other serious crimes in New Jersey visit HeatherDarlingLawyer.com. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.