85 A.3d 408
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2014Background
- Raymond Troxell and Vincent Russo were business partners at an Italian deli; Troxell repeatedly threatened Russo and allegedly arranged payment to have him killed.
- Russo was found murdered on December 16, 2008, died of a single close-range gunshot to the head; ballistics matched ammunition consistent with a derringer.
- Co-defendant Frank Marsh was accused of shooting Russo; phone records, bar surveillance, witness testimony, and payment-related evidence tied Troxell to Marsh.
- Troxell gave two videotaped statements to police; he admitted prior threats and acknowledged paying $3,000 (via an intermediary) but claimed he did not expect Marsh to kill Russo.
- A jury convicted Troxell; it answered interrogatories finding he procured the murder by payment, leading to a mandatory life-without-parole sentence under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3(b)(4).
- Troxell appealed, arguing (inter alia) his statements were coerced, evidence of the co-defendant’s firearms was improper, and the trial court should have instructed jurors they could return a non-unanimous verdict on the “triggering factor” (murder-for-hire eligibility).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/voluntariness of Troxell's videotaped statements | State: statements were voluntary and properly admitted | Troxell: waiver of Miranda/right to remain silent was not knowing or voluntary; police coerced statements | Court rejected Troxell’s claims and affirmed admission (claims considered and denied) |
| Admission of evidence about Marsh’s lawful gun ownership | State: gun evidence was relevant to link weapon/ammunition to the killing | Troxell: evidence irrelevant and impermissibly commented on exercise of constitutional rights | Court found admission proper (issue not sustained) |
| Jury unanimity instruction for triggering factor (murder-for-hire) | State: 2007 statutory changes eliminated any statutory non-unanimity option; prior capital-case unanimity jurisprudence no longer requires a non-unanimity charge | Troxell: judge should have told jurors they could return a non-unanimous finding on the triggering factor, which would bar mandatory life-without-parole | Court held no duty to instruct jurors they could return a non-unanimous verdict on triggering factors under the post-2007 statutory scheme; affirmed conviction and sentence |
| Whether omission of non-unanimity instruction was plain error affecting sentence | State: if error, review is plain error and under facts not obviously prejudicial; at most remand for resentencing under non-trigger statute | Troxell: omission was plain error that exposed him to mandatory life-without-parole improperly | Court concluded no error in omitting non-unanimity instruction given legislative repeal of death-penalty framework and affirmed without remanding for this reason |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramseur, 106 N.J. 123 (recognition of juror option to return a final non-unanimous verdict in capital sentencing)
- State v. Bey (II), 112 N.J. 123 (unanimity requirement for aggravating factors; jurors need not unanimously find mitigating factors)
- State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481 (extension of non-unanimity instruction to guilt-phase triggering determinations in capital cases)
- State v. Mejia, 141 N.J. 475 (non-unanimity instruction required for certain capital-trigger distinctions)
- State v. Cooper, 151 N.J. 326 (limited court’s non-unanimity jurisprudence to capital cases)
- State v. Josephs, 174 N.J. 44 (discussing jury reconsideration of aggravating factors in capital sentencing)
- State v. Fortin, 198 N.J. 619 (post-2007 statutory effect: life-without-parole replaces death penalty and legislature removed jury consideration of mitigating factors)
- Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (U.S. Supreme Court rejection of requirement to inform jury of sentencing consequences of nonunanimity in federal capital context)