STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. TARI D. TURPIN(14-05-0885, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1745-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- Early-morning altercation on a PATH train: Turpin argued with passenger D.D.; pulled a Glock 9 with hollow-point ammo, returned it to his pocket, then pulled it out again.
- A.M. intervened by grabbing Turpin’s pocket and wrist; Turpin fired, severing three fingers of A.M.’s left hand and wounding himself in the leg.
- After exiting the train in Jersey City, Turpin fired two shots at D.D., hitting her in the leg and shattering her ankle; he discarded the gun at the station and fled.
- PATH security video captured virtually the entire incident; gun later recovered and linked to the person who provided it to Turpin.
- Indictment charged Turpin with, among other counts, two counts of second-degree aggravated assault (alleging he acted "purposely or knowingly"); jury convicted on both counts; court imposed an aggregate 30-year term (20-year extended term + consecutive 10 years), NERA applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury charge allowing conviction on recklessness was permissible when indictment charged only "purposely or knowingly" | State: The statutory offense (N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(1)) may be proven by purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct; indictment gave adequate notice | Turpin: Inclusion of recklessness in charge and verdict sheet was unfair surprise because indictment omitted "recklessly" | Court: No error — pleading the statute (most serious culpability) suffices to cover lesser culpabilities; no prejudice shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault of A.M. | State: Video and testimony support finding Turpin purposely/knowingly or recklessly caused injury to A.M. | Turpin: Evidence insufficient to prove purposeful or knowing shooting of A.M. | Court: Evidence was sufficient for jury to find purposeful/knowing or reckless conduct; acquittal not warranted |
| Validity of extended 20-year term for shooting D.D. | State: Aggravated facts justified extended discretionary term; sentencing explained on record | Turpin: Court failed to properly analyze record and make required findings for extension | Court: Affirmed — judge provided appropriate explanation; extended term lawful |
| Whether mitigating factors (family hardship, provocation) were improperly ignored at sentencing | Turpin: Trial court failed to consider two mitigating factors adequately | State: No mitigating factors applicable given facts | Court: No abuse of discretion; judge correctly determined no mitigating factors applied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murphy, 185 N.J. Super. 72 (Law Div. 1982) (pleading the greater culpability suffices to cover lesser culpabilities)
- State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454 (1967) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49 (2014) (standards for consecutive sentences and extended terms)
- State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155 (2006) (sentencing principles for extended terms)
- State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627 (1985) (consecutive sentences and sentencing discretion)