State v. Morgan
33 A.3d 527
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- seventeen-year-old Morgan shot Juan Carlos Martinez during a dispute at Pollo Deli after attempting to obtain a refund for a Boost card
- Morgan was indicted on multiple counts including first-degree attempted murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose
- jury convicted Morgan of second and fourth degree aggravated assault against Juan Carlos and second degree possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose; acquitted of attempted murder and could not reach verdict on robbery and another aggravated assault charge
- post-verdict, the court merged the two counts and sentenced Morgan to six-and-a-half years with NERA and three years’ parole supervision
- Morgan raised issues on ex parte judge-jury communications and on jurors taking home copies of court instructions; the court addressed these on appeal
- the appellate court upheld the convictions and discussed the propriety of the ex parte communications and the practice of allowing jurors to take home parts of the charge, ultimately cautioning against the practice without explicit authority
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex parte communications with the jury | Morgan argues ex parte judge–jury communications violated open-court requirements | Morgan contends such communications risked prejudice to her trial | No reversible error; communications addressed innocuous scheduling matters |
| Jurors taking home copies of portions of the charge | Morgan argues this practice compromised deliberations | Morgan argues for reversal due to potential juror misconduct | Not reversible; practice not shown to prejudice the verdict; appellate guidance urged against widespread use |
| Trial court's failure to consult counsel before allowing take-home materials | Morgan contends due process required counsel input | Morgan's position | Court should have consulted counsel; nonetheless no reversal given limited scope and cautionary guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Basit, 378 N.J. Super. 125 (App.Div. 2005) (ex parte jury communications are improper and must be open-record)
- State v. Guzzi, 36 N.J. Super. 255 (App.Div. 1955) (ex parte communications threaten due process)
- State v. Brown, 275 N.J. Super. 329 (App.Div. 1994) (judge should avoid ex parte jury communications)
- State v. Whittaker, 326 N.J. Super. 252 (App.Div. 1999) (counsel must be consulted when jury poses questions)
- State v. Graham, 285 N.J. Super. 337 (App.Div. 1995) (counsel's input crucial when jury questions are ambiguous)
- State v. O'Brien, 200 N.J. 520 (2009) (Rule 1:8-8(a) discretionary authority over written jury instructions)
- State v. Loftin, 146 N.J. 295 (1996) (presumption juries follow trial judge's instructions)
- State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494 (2005) (sentence review framework)