State v. Jamil McKinney(073070), 126 A.3d 1200

Background

In April 2007 three armed men invaded an apartment; defendants Al‑Tariq Wardrick and Jamil McKinney were arrested and tried jointly on a 17‑count indictment including first‑degree armed robbery and related weapons and burglary charges.
At trial the parties and court agreed the jury would not be instructed on second‑degree robbery as a lesser‑included offense of first‑degree robbery.
During the jury charge the trial judge twice misstated the law by indicating the jury should convict of second‑degree robbery if the State failed to prove the armed element, then attempted brief curative remarks that the second‑degree option was not before the jury.
The jury convicted both defendants of first‑degree robbery (and other counts) but failed to reach verdicts on some weapons counts; McKinney’s first‑degree robbery conviction was later reversed by one Appellate Division panel as reversible error, while a separate panel affirmed Wardrick’s conviction.
The Supreme Court consolidated review, held the references to second‑degree robbery were erroneous and the curative instructions inadequate, and ordered a new trial on the first‑degree robbery count for Wardrick (affirming McKinney’s reversal); other convictions were affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s reference to second‑degree robbery in the jury charge was plain error requiring reversal	The charge, read as a whole, correctly stated controlling law; the judge promptly self‑corrected and the error was harmless given the full instructions and strong evidence	The misstatements permitted conviction of first‑degree robbery without a unanimous finding that defendants were armed; the curative remarks were ineffective and prejudicial	The erroneous references and inadequate curative instructions had clear capacity to produce an unjust result; reversible error as to first‑degree robbery (new trial ordered)
Whether inconsistent appellate panel results required application of the law of the case doctrine to Wardrick’s appeal	One panel may disagree with another; the law of the case does not bind a coordinate appellate panel	Wardrick argued McKinney’s successful reversal should control his appeal because the same trial error prejudiced both defendants	Law of the case doctrine is not appropriate to deny an independent appeal; each defendant is entitled to full and fair review (K.P.S. control)
Standard of review for unobjected‑to jury charge errors	Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overall instructions and evidence	Plain‑error review applies; to reverse error must have clear capacity to produce unjust result	Plain‑error standard applies; jury instructions viewed as whole; here error was prejudicial
Proper content of curative instructions when a judge misspeaks on an element	Brief self‑correction suffices where charge elsewhere correctly states law	Where an element (here, armedness) is contested, the jury must be told to acquit if that element is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt	Better practice is explicit instruction that failure to find any element (including armedness) requires a not guilty verdict; the brief curative remarks were insufficient

Key Cases Cited

State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266 (2015) (law‑of‑the‑case in criminal appeals limited; each defendant entitled to full appellate review)
State v. Camacho, 218 N.J. 533 (2014) (plain‑error standard for jury‑instruction errors)
State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409 (1997) (jury charge must be read as a whole to determine overall effect)
State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41 (1997) (adequate and understandable jury instructions are essential)
State v. Harris, 141 N.J. 525 (1995) (approving instruction requiring proof of each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (1932) (principle regarding inconsistent jury verdicts)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (jurisprudence on inconsistent and non‑responsive jury verdicts)