State v. Osborne S. Maloney (068877), 77 A.3d 1147

Background

Maloney was tried for a home-invasion robbery and shooting; co-defendant Rodriguez admitted guilt and testified that Maloney shot the victim.
Evidence: surveillance/scope-out trip photos, DNA from Maloney in the getaway Lexus, Rodriguez found with cash, watches, black mask, and he confessed; police recorded calls in which Rodriguez asked Maloney to pick him up.
Maloney testified he did not participate in the robbery; he admitted only that he later took a taxi to a hotel to pick up co-defendants and expected reimbursement or payment for two stolen watches.
Trial court refused defense requests to instruct on (1) accomplice liability sua sponte and (2) two theft-related lesser/related offenses (attempted receipt of stolen property; conspiracy to receive stolen property).
Jury convicted Maloney of armed robbery, burglary, conspiracy counts, weapon possession, and related offenses; Appellate Division affirmed but merged certain convictions; Supreme Court granted certification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Maloney)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by failing sua sponte to instruct the jury on accomplice liability under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6 and Bielkiewicz	No error: State prosecuted Maloney as a principal and evidence supported principal theory; no request was made at trial; accomplice charge not warranted and could prejudice defendant	The absence of accomplice instruction prevented the jury from considering a middle-ground verdict (accomplice liability) and violated Bielkiewicz when evidence could rationally support such a theory	No plain error. Court held no sua sponte duty because State prosecuted as principal and evidence did not provide a rational basis for an accomplice verdict.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge two lesser-included/related offenses (attempted receipt of stolen property; conspiracy to receive stolen property)	No: receiving stolen property is a property offense distinct from robbery (a crime against the person); statutes and record do not show shared statutory elements or a common factual nucleus to warrant included/related-offense instructions	Yes: trial judge’s refusal left jury with an all-or-nothing choice; Maloney admitted to attempted receipt, so a related-offense charge was supported and should have been given upon request	No error. Court held those offenses are not lesser-included under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8d and the evidence did not create a rational basis to charge attempted receipt or conspiracy to receive as related offenses.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bielkiewicz, 267 N.J. Super. 520 (App. Div. 1993) (trial courts must instruct on accomplice liability when State’s theory includes accomplice liability)
State v. Crumb, 307 N.J. Super. 204 (App. Div. 1997) (no accomplice instruction required where State prosecuted defendant only as a principal and defendant denied involvement)
State v. Thomas, 187 N.J. 119 (2006) (distinguishes lesser-included and related offenses; sua sponte instruction required only when evidence provides rational basis for lesser-included offense)
State v. Smith, 136 N.J. 245 (1994) (theft-type offenses are not lesser-included offenses of armed robbery where operative elements differ)
State v. Freeman, 324 N.J. Super. 463 (App. Div. 1999) (examines when theft-related charges may be appropriate as lesser or related offenses depending on factual nexus)
State v. Weeks, 107 N.J. 396 (1987) (need for clear jury guidance when accomplice liability affects degree or grade of offenses)
State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281 (1981) (accurate jury instructions are essential; errors on fundamental subjects are presumptively prejudicial)
State v. Kelly, 201 N.J. 471 (2010) (inconsistent jury verdicts are not a basis for appellate correction)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings referenced in arrest/interrogation context)