STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. LATONIA E. BELLAMY (11-03-0348, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3676-12T2

Background

Defendant Latonia Bellamy was tried alone for the April 4, 2010 carjacking/robbery in which Nia Haqq and Michael Muchioki were shot; defendant was convicted of first‑degree murder (Haqq), multiple counts of felony murder, carjacking, robbery, weapons offenses and conspiracy. Co‑defendant Shiquan Bellamy was separately tried and convicted; Darmelia Lawrence pled guilty and cooperated.
At trial the State played a recorded Miranda waiver statement in which defendant admitted going out with Shiquan (who had a shotgun) carrying a 9mm handgun, firing two shots toward Nia after Shiquan shot Michael, receiving $20–$40 taken from the victims, and discarding victims’ identification/credit cards; defendant also testified and claimed she did not intend to kill and acted under fear of her cousin.
Forensics: autopsies showed Michael died from a near‑contact shotgun wound and Nia from gunshots to the back of the head and thigh from a distance greater than 18 inches. A spent cartridge was recovered near Nia’s head.
The jury found defendant guilty on the charged counts and she was sentenced to life (NERA) for Haqq’s murder and a consecutive 30‑year NERA term for felony murder of Michael, producing over 93 years parole ineligibility before eligibility.
On appeal defendant raised challenges to jury instructions (accomplice liability “mere presence,” failure to charge duress, refusal to give lesser included theft/receiving instruction), prosecutorial summation remarks, cumulative error, and sentence excessiveness/incorrect factor findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bellamy)	Held
Accomplice‑liability instruction — omission of "mere presence" language	Jury was properly instructed on accomplice liability and distinctions between principal and accomplice; charge as given covered defendant’s theory.	Omission of the Model Jury Charge text on "mere presence" prejudiced defendant because jury should have been told to examine totality of circumstances before finding accomplice liability.	Affirmed — no error. Given defendant’s admissions and actions (taking the gun, firing), the omitted wording was unnecessary and any omission would be harmless.
Failure to sua sponte charge duress	No requirement to give duress instruction where defendant did not give pretrial notice and record lacks evidence of coercion or threat; plain‑error standard not met.	Duress was supported by testimony that defendant feared Shiquan (armed with a shotgun) and felt unable to leave; judge should have instructed jury on duress.	Affirmed — no plain error. Defendant failed to give required Rule 3:12‑1 notice and record lacked evidence of coercion sufficient to warrant the defense.
Refusal to give theft/receiving as lesser‑included of robbery	Evidence showed defendant used or threatened force (fired a gun while victims were on the ground), so no rational basis for a lesserincluded receiving charge.	Receipt of $20–$40 could support conviction for receiving stolen property rather than robbery.	Affirmed — no abuse. Defendant’s admitted actions established force/bodily injury in the course of theft, precluding a rational basis for the lesser included charge.
Prosecutor summation remarks and objections	Prosecutor’s comments were fair comment on defense counsel’s argument and on reasonable inferences from the evidence (location of spent casing); trial judge properly overruled objections and instructed the jury that summations are not evidence.	Remarks denigrated defense and vouched for facts not in evidence (e.g., implying casing linked to fatal shot).	Affirmed — comments were within permissible bounds of argument; no reversible prosecutorial misconduct and no curative instruction required.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Randolph, 441 N.J. Super. 533 (App. Div. 2015) (clarifies importance of clear and correct jury instructions)
State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409 (1997) (charge as a whole must be accurate; parties not entitled to judge’s wording)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1970) (harmless‑error test for omitted jury instructions)
State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312 (2007) (plain‑error standard for unrequested jury charges)
State v. Timmendequas, 161 N.J. 515 (1999) (standard for reversing convictions for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. O'Donnell, 117 N.J. 210 (1989) (sentencing requires identification, support, and balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors)