STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. M.P.(13-09-1797, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-3135-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 27, 2017Background
- Defendant M.P. was indicted on 22 counts arising from two separate break-in incidents (September and October 2012) and related conduct against his then-wife C.G.; many counts were later severed or dismissed and several counts were tried together.
- September incidents: alleged break-in while C.G. and children were home; repeated harassment/appearances reported to police.
- October incident: C.G. discovered a possibly forced bathroom window, police checked, then defendant allegedly attacked, choked, threatened to kill, sexually assaulted C.G., and took $400 after C.G. agreed to drop charges.
- Defendant testified to a different account: he was invited in, had consensual sex, was cut when C.G. lunged with a knife, and punched her once in self-defense; he denied threats.
- Jury acquitted on most counts but convicted defendant of third-degree assault (lesser included of aggravated assault) and fourth-degree stalking; sentenced to concurrent probationary terms with a 364-day jail condition and a permanent restraining order.
- On appeal defendant raised (1) failure to give a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction when multiple break-ins were tried together, (2) failure to give a special unanimity instruction on the stalking count, and (3) an error in the Judgment of Conviction (JOC) misidentifying the convicted count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction was required when multiple charged offenses were tried together | State: No limiting instruction required because evidence related to charged offenses, not uncharged acts | M.P.: Multiple break-ins were "other-crimes" evidence requiring a limiting instruction to prevent propensity inference | Court: No error — Rule 404(b) applies to uncharged misconduct; here evidence was intrinsic to charged counts and general instruction to consider each count separately was sufficient |
| Whether a special unanimity instruction was required for the stalking conviction | State: General unanimity instruction sufficed; alleged acts were conceptually similar and continuous | M.P.: Multiple incidents were alleged and jury could have convicted based on different acts without unanimous agreement on a single incident | Court: No plain error — the stalking acts were conceptually similar course-of-conduct offenses and the trial court repeatedly gave a general unanimity instruction, so a special instruction was unnecessary |
| Whether the JOC contains a clerical error misidentifying the convicted count | State: JOC should accurately reflect jury verdict | M.P.: JOC incorrectly lists conviction on count sixteen rather than count fifteen | Court: Agreed — remanded for correction of JOC to reflect conviction on count fifteen |
| Standard of review (procedural) | State: Issues not preserved; review under plain-error standard | M.P.: Challenges raised for first time on appeal | Court: Applied plain-error review and found no plain error for instructions but ordered JOC correction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 138 N.J. 481 (1994) (plain-error standard explained)
- State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) (distinguishing intrinsic evidence from Rule 404(b) other-crime evidence)
- State v. Pitts, 116 N.J. 580 (1989) (adequacy of cautioning jurors to deliberate separately on joined counts)
- State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628 (1991) (when unanimity instruction is required for multiple acts)
- State v. Whitaker, 200 N.J. 444 (2009) (definition of plain error as capable of producing an unjust result)