STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. QUAHEEM JOHNSONÂ (08-08-1494, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1368-14T2

Background

Defendant Quaheem Johnson was indicted for murder, felony murder, multiple armed-robbery counts, weapons offenses, aggravated assault on an officer, and related charges arising from a fatal shooting during robberies; DNA and eyewitness evidence linked him to the crimes.
After a mistrial in a first trial, a second trial produced mixed results: the jury deadlocked on the greater charged offenses (murder, felony murder, certain robberies) but returned guilty verdicts on lesser-included offenses (including aggravated manslaughter and second-degree robbery) and several weapons/resisting counts.
Jury deliberations were interrupted by Hurricane Sandy; a different judge presided over resumed deliberations and answered juror questions about the order of considering charged vs. lesser-included offenses, saying jurors "may deliberate about the charges in any order you wish."
The second judge accepted the partial verdicts (including guilty verdicts on lesser offenses) over defense objection; the State later pursued an interlocutory appeal and this Court previously held the improper-termination statute barred retrial on murder/felony murder and remanded for sentencing on convictions the jury returned.
On remand, defendant appealed his convictions, raising four points: (1) improper substitution of an absent juror during deliberations, (2) inadequate response to jury conflict/bullying, (3) erroneous instruction permitting consideration of lesser-included offenses before unanimously resolving greater charges, and (4) failure to instruct jury that a partial verdict would be final.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge erred by telling jurors they could consider lesser-included offenses in any order	State defended the procedure and verdicts as not producing prejudice	Johnson argued the instruction encouraged compromise and could have led to non-unanimous or coerced outcomes	Court found the instruction erroneous but harmless; no reversal because defendant was not prejudiced and he benefited by conviction on lesser, not greater, offenses
Whether the judge erred by not ensuring the jury understood a partial verdict would be final	State argued no further deliberations were intended and accepting verdicts as final posed no problem	Johnson contended the court should have explicitly confirmed finality to avoid confusion and unanimity problems	Court held no plain error: acceptance of verdicts was final and there was no indication jurors would continue deliberating on deadlocked counts
Whether substituting an alternate for an absent juror during deliberations was improper	State argued the absence was for personal reasons (preplanned trip), excusal was permitted under Rule 1:8-2, and substitution was within the judge's discretion	Johnson argued the juror should have been questioned about canceling the trip or the trial delayed until she could return	Court upheld substitution as a proper exercise of discretion: absence was personal and substitution factors supported replacement; no abuse of discretion or prejudice
Whether the court mishandled a juror dispute/bullying and should have given a modified Czachor/Allen charge or further inquiry	State maintained that the judge addressed the dispute, took a break, and the jury resumed without incident	Johnson argued the record suggested bullying and the court should have investigated and given a duty-to-deliberate instruction to prevent coercion	Court found no physical altercation or evidence of irreparable breakdown; judge's actions were adequate and defendant failed to show prejudice

Key Cases Cited

State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (court defines plain-error test and supplemental jury charges for deadlock)
State v. Shomo, 129 N.J. 248 (requirement to instruct jury that a partial verdict is final before further deliberations)
State v. Hightower, 146 N.J. 239 (explains potential prejudice from substituting jurors during deliberations)
State v. Jenknins, 182 N.J. 112 (limits on excusing deliberating jurors and acceptable reasons for removal)
State v. Williams, 171 N.J. 151 (deference to trial court on juror-substitution decisions)
State v. Ross, 218 N.J. 130 (upholding substitution for jurors excused for personal reasons)
State v. Musa, 222 N.J. 554 (standard of review for juror-removal and mistrial decisions)
State v. Dorsainvil, 435 N.J. Super. 449 (physical altercation in jury room constitutes irreparable breakdown of deliberations)
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (historical basis for admonitions against coerced jury compromise)