STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ARTHUR E. MORGAN, III (12-06-1138, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-1123-14T2

Background

In November 2011 defendant Arthur E. Morgan, III had parenting time with his two‑year‑old daughter and failed to return her; her body was later found in a stream strapped into a car seat weighted with a car jack. An autopsy concluded the child drowned and death was ruled a homicide.
Defendant fled to California; after arrest he gave a recorded statement admitting he placed the child, in a car seat weighted with a car jack, in the stream and left her there, saying he could not bear the thought of losing access to her in the context of relationship conflict with the mother.
Police recreated scenarios with a matching car seat, sandbag approximating the child’s weight, and a car jack; results were used at trial to explain how the seat could have behaved in the stream. The car jack was traced to a person who had lent it to defendant; defendant stipulated to that fact.
At trial the jury convicted defendant of first‑degree murder, second‑degree endangering the welfare of a child (merged into murder), and third‑degree interference with custody; a special finding that the victim was under 14 required life without parole under NERA. The trial court imposed life without parole for murder plus a consecutive five years for interference with custody.
Defendant appealed raising six arguments: alleged defective jury charges (state‑of‑mind/diminished capacity, passion/provocation manslaughter, voluntary intoxication), refusal to excuse a juror, admission of certain statements and testimony (to C.T. and the San Diego detective), denial of change of venue, and excessiveness of sentence (Yarbough analysis).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to give a modified diminished‑capacity/state‑of‑mind charge	Model murder instruction and lack of mental‑disease evidence made additional charge unnecessary	Requested a modified Delibero‑style state‑of‑mind charge despite offering no expert mental‑disease evidence	Affirmed: no error—no evidence of mental disease/defect; proposed charge would have been confusing
Failure to charge passion/provocation manslaughter	Provocation by the child’s mother could support heat‑of‑passion theory	Murder resulted from provocation by mother’s words; manslaughter instruction was required	Affirmed: no error—killing an innocent bystander (the child) not mitigable by provocation; no adequate provocation or lack of cooling‑off shown
Failure to sua sponte charge voluntary intoxication	Not raised at trial; insufficient evidence of intoxication at the time of killing	Evidence of marijuana use earlier that day and liquor purchases made the charge necessary	Affirmed: no plain error—evidence did not clearly indicate intoxication at time of offense
Juror challenge denied after disclosure of juror’s daughter’s acquaintance with a witness	State: juror assured court he could be impartial; disclosure arose after juror learned of connection, not from misrepresentation	Defendant would have peremptorily struck juror if knew earlier; trial court should have excused juror	Affirmed: no error—juror did not fail to disclose known facts and stated impartiality; no showing of prejudice
Admission of C.T.’s testimony recounting defendant’s prior statement about preferring the child dead	Statement was admissible as party‑opponent and probative of motive/plan	Statement was unduly prejudicial under N.J.R.E. 403 and should have been excluded	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion—probative of motive and not substantially outweighed by prejudice; proper limiting instruction given
Admission of defendant’s extradition remark to San Diego detective about sentence	Statement shows consciousness of guilt and awareness of wrongdoing	Statement was prejudicial under N.J.R.E. 403 and should have been excluded	Affirmed: admissible and not plainly harmful—probative of defendant’s understanding of conduct
Denial of change of venue	Court provided opportunity to renew motion at jury selection; voir dire did not show prejudice	Pretrial publicity required change of venue; court abused discretion	Affirmed: no abuse—motion not renewed and voir dire showed juror willingness to decide based on trial evidence
Consecutive sentence (Yarbough factors)	Consecutive sentence appropriate because offenses were separate and involved distinct harms	Sentencing judge failed adequately to analyze Yarbough factors; sentence excessive	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion—consecutive sentence supported as separate crime under Yarbough

Key Cases Cited

State v. Delibero, 149 N.J. 90 (1997) (when defendant presents insanity/diminished‑capacity evidence jury should consider it in assessing mens rea)
State v. Josephs, 174 N.J. 44 (2002) (elements and jury instruction principles for passion/provocation manslaughter)
State v. Galicia, 210 N.J. 364 (2012) (outlines passion/provocation elements and application)
State v. Lewis, 223 N.J. Super. 145 (App. Div. 1988) (killing of innocent bystanders not excused by provocation)
State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) (factors guiding consecutive v. concurrent sentencing)
Reynolds v. Gonzalez, 172 N.J. 266 (2002) (trial court duty to give correct jury instructions)
State v. Funderburg, 225 N.J. 66 (2016) (plain‑error review for unobjected instructional issues)
State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397 (2007) (N.J.R.E. 403 exclusion standard: probative value substantially outweighed by prejudice)