STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES A. STUARTÂ (13-09-0949, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3262-15T4

Background

Defendant James A. Stuart, a Deptford Township police officer, shot and killed his friend David Compton (single gunshot to the head) after they returned from a bar; defendant admitted firing the shot but claimed he thought the Glock .27 was unloaded.
Indictment alleged purposeful murder (Count I), knowing murder (Count II), aggravated manslaughter (Count III), and unlawful-purpose firearm possession (Count IV).
Jury acquitted on Count I (purposeful murder) and Count IV, but convicted on Count II (knowing murder) and Count III (aggravated manslaughter); the judge merged Counts II and III and sentenced defendant for murder.
At trial defendant’s theory was that he rendered the gun safe, permitted the victim to dry-fire it, briefly dozed, and the victim (or some inadvertent action) caused the chambered round to fire; defendant repeatedly asserted he believed the gun was unloaded.
The trial court’s jury instructions did not direct the jury to consider homicide charges in descending/sequential order (murder before manslaughter), and the court did not give a mistake-of-fact instruction; defendant did not object at trial and raised these issues on appeal.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Stuart's Argument	Held
Whether jury instructions permitting verdicts on both knowing murder and aggravated manslaughter were erroneous because the two mental states are mutually exclusive and the jury should have been required to decide sequentially (murder before manslaughter)	No reversible error; lesser-included and indicted lesser offenses can coexist; State relied on sufficiency and Dunn/Powell principles	Failure to require sequential consideration allowed inconsistent guilty verdicts on incompatible mens rea; plain error requiring reversal	Reversed and remanded for new trial on Counts II and III: court erred by not directing jury to consider offenses sequentially and the error was not harmless
Whether trial court plainly erred by not charging mistake of fact (belief gun was unloaded)	Jury heard testimony and credibility arguments; State conceded force of argument but maintained counsel argument and general credibility instructions sufficed	Mistake of fact directly negates required mens rea for murder and could negate recklessness — omission was plain error requiring reversal	Court held omission of a mistake-of-fact instruction was plain error and not harmless; new trial required
Whether failure to charge voluntary intoxication was reversible error	No request was made; record did not clearly indicate prostration-of-faculties standard was met	Intoxication was relevant to mens rea and should have been charged if the evidence supported it	No reversible error: record did not clearly indicate intoxication met the high "prostration of faculties" threshold and the charge was not clearly required
Sufficiency of the evidence; whether the court erred in denying acquittal motions or a new trial	Evidence (statements, scene, trajectory, post-shooting conduct) could support murder or manslaughter; convictions were permissible based on record	Evidence supported reasonable doubt and closer reading favors acquittal or new trial	Denials of acquittal/new-trial motions were upheld; the court found the record presented a close case but not a miscarriage of justice
Whether prosecutor improperly argued defendant (a police officer) should be held to a higher standard regarding firearms training, warranting reversal	Officer training is relevant to recklessness; no timely objection so no basis for reversal	Elevating standard by virtue of officer status was prejudicial and improper	No plain error: witness evidence about training was admissible and the prosecutor’s argument was within permissible bounds, though caution advised for future cases

Key Cases Cited

Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1932) (permitting inconsistent jury verdicts to stand)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1984) (explaining limits and rationale for allowing inconsistent jury verdicts)
State v. Sexton, 160 N.J. 93 (N.J. 1999) (mistake of fact affects mens rea; trial court must instruct jury on mistake when evidence supports it)
State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347 (N.J. 2004) (trial court’s duty to instruct on lesser-included offenses when rational basis exists)
State v. Banko, 182 N.J. 44 (N.J. 2004) (discussion of inconsistent verdicts and limits when other trial errors exist)