STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. MAURICE L. TREAKLE (17-11-2379, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2309-18

Background

Victim Christopher Shirazi was robbed at knifepoint by two men who took his cellphone and $326; one assailant struck him and threatened him with a folding knife.
Minutes later police encountered defendant Maurice Treakle; he had Shirazi’s cellphone and had just discarded a green folding knife under a hoodie near the police car.
At trial Shirazi’s in-court identification was equivocal—he initially did not identify anyone in court but later gestured toward defendant during cross-examination; defense emphasized misidentification.
The trial court declined to deliver the full model identification instruction, and its accomplice-liability charge repeatedly used the ambiguous term “and/or.”
The jury convicted Treakle of first-degree robbery, possession of a knife for an unlawful purpose (merged at sentencing), and unlawful possession of a knife; judge later clarified accomplice liability after a jury question.
On appeal the court affirmed the convictions, found the identification-instruction omission harmless given corroboration, held the initial "and/or" ambiguity was cured by the later clarification, but ordered merger of the fourth-degree unlawful-possession count with the robbery for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to give identification instruction (plain error)	Omission harmless because strong corroborative evidence linked defendant to the crime (phone on his person, discarded knife)	Misidentification was the main thrust of defense; omission of ID charge was plain error	Omission was not plain error: corroboration (possession of victim’s phone and discarded knife) and other jury instructions cured the omission
Ambiguous accomplice-liability instruction using "and/or"	Any ambiguity was cured by the court’s later, clear clarification in response to the jury’s question	Repeated use of "and/or" injected fatal ambiguity depriving fair trial	Initial use of "and/or" was confusing, but the court cured the error by a subsequent unambiguous instruction when the jury asked for clarification
Sufficiency of evidence / request to mold verdict to lesser offense	State: evidence (possession of phone, discarded knife, victim’s identification) amply supported robbery conviction	Evidence insufficient for first-degree robbery; conviction should be acquitted or molded to lesser offense	Claim lacks merit; ample evidence supported conviction, so no acquittal or molding warranted
Failure to merge unlawful-possession conviction with robbery	State concurred that unlawful-possession count should merge into robbery	Unlawful-possession should not have been separately sentenced	Court agreed that the fourth-degree unlawful-possession conviction must merge with robbery; remanded for resentencing

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cotto, 182 N.J. 316 (2005) (identification instruction required when identification is a key issue; corroboration can cure omission)
State v. Sanchez-Medina, 231 N.J. 452 (2018) (failure to give ID instruction where corroboration was weak warranted reversal)
State v. Gonzalez, 444 N.J. Super. 62 (App. Div. 2016) (repeated use of "and/or" in accomplice charge can create unacceptable ambiguity)
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208 (2011) (framework for evaluating eyewitness identification; estimator variables)
State v. Macon, 57 N.J. 325 (1971) (plain-error standard governing unpreserved objections)
State v. Romero, 191 N.J. 59 (2007) (weapon-possession conviction merges into substantive offense when the weapon was used solely to commit that offense)