State v. Harris

303 sеntence, similarly defen- situated but most dant receives death sentences, unfairly singled for life he has been out dants receive death. standard, sen- an occasional proportionality

Under the Court’s However, comparisons the case tencing disparity permissible. is Morton example example disparity of the between here after offer escaped death. similarly who situated defendants other Therefore, his death sentence is has Morton demonstrated and, thus, disproportionate. aberrant I Accordingly, dissent. O’HERN, PORITZ and Justices

For Justice affirmance —Chief STEIN, and LaVECCHIA —5. COLEMAN LONG —1.

To remandment —Justice vacate A.2d 221 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JERSEY, v. OF NEW STATE HARRIS, A. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. AMBROSE 2, August Argued 2000. March 2000 Decided

307 Deputy Public Defender and Clau- Pugliese, Frank J. Assistant Defender, for Wyk, argued the cause Deputy Public dia Van (Ivelisse Torres, Defender, attorney). Public appellant Hulett, General, Attorney argued cause Deputy A. Nancy Jr., (John Farmer, Attorney General New J. respondent for attorney). Jersey, by opinion delivered

The of the Court was LaVECCHIA, J. 1996, jury 20, Burlington County February convicted a

On knowing mur purposeful A. Harris of defendant Ambrose Huggins. felony Kristin and the murder of his own conduct der kidnaping, crimes of jury him of the related The also convicted assault, handgun for an aggravated possession of robbery, sexual theft offenses. sentenced purpose unlawful and various We capital murder conviction. affirmed on defendant death accompanying direct capital sentence on conviction its request proportionality review reserving appeal, defendant’s Harris, 122, 133, N.J. separate v. 156 proceeding. State for this (1998). in disproportionality find no defen A.2d We now 458 sentence of death. dant’s

I. BACKGROUND FACTUAL Harris, supra, N.J. forth facts this case are set specific facts that opinion from that 716 A.2d 458. We draw review, expanding on our proportionality material to the are necessary. discussion as 17, 1992, twenty-two year old morning of December

On Toyota sports car from her her MR2 Huggins drove red Kristin Pennsylvania to the Trenton Club County, Bucks parents’ home in Trenton, Jersey. paint intended to She New downtown mural, Huggins perform that task. When never able to but was 17th, immediately parents her not return home on December did missing. her reported

308 car,

Huggins’ slashed, mud-covered and with its tires was found day. authorities the reported next The news media on her disappearance, $25,000 and a reward of any was offered for finding information to Huggins’ body assist her. eventually February recovered in approximately two months after she disappeared. investigation

The concerning Huggins’ disappearance did not focus on January defendant until 1993. At that time defendant’s nephew police informed that defendant bragged had himto about hijacking Toyota a red having MR2 and robbed and “knocked off girl.” some white nephew, witnesses, Defendant’s as well as other reported also that defendant driving was seen a red MR2 with a Pennsylvania plate night license on the of December 17th. Defen nephew dant’s taking even admitted to Toyota the red MR2 for a addition, night. ride that In security showed, bank ATM video confirmed, and bank records that defendant attempted to with Huggins’ draw from account $400 on December 17th. major

A investigation break in the in February occurred when police Gloria Dunn led to the Huggins’ body, location of claiming body to have seen psychic in a vision. body badly decomposed. Dunn inquiries made numerous regarding the money reward in return for her information.

Eventually, however, police learned that Dunn knew the Huggins’ location body because she was with defendant at the time of the murder. Dunn identified defendant as the murderer provided numerous police statements to the concerning the surrounding circumstances the murder. Some of those state- Also, ments were inconsistent. reveal, Dunn failed to ap- until proximately year-and-a-half investigation, into the that defen- sexually dant Huggins. Nevertheless, assaulted consistently she implicated defendant triggerman as the who Huggins. murdered trial, At she featured eyewitness as the murder, State’s to the providing only direct linking evidence defendant to the crime. account,

To rebut Dunn’s the defense attacking focused on her credibility based on inconsistencies in testimony compared her during investigation. defense statements made earlier crime, her in the failure highlighted professed Dunn’s involvement help attempt Huggins to for when she was escape to seek to so, delay her in ample opportunity to do presented with also police. to The defense attacked reporting the murder the credibility by reminding the she received Dunn’s that charges exchange testimony against in for defendant. reduction in Defendant testified. never jury may presented the be summarized

The evidence to 1992, defendant Dunn testified that in late November follows. join robbing her him in a Trenton luncheonette. She asked to 17,1992, morning to agreed. They to the of December were meet at 8:00 a.m. on carry holdup. day, defendant arrived out the That location, upon a .22 caliber bicycle agreed armed with the robbery. the Dunn set out to commit revolver. He and then raining it morn- complained Dunn about the fact that was “carjack” someone to avoid ing, so said he would defendant in would do walking rain. Dunn then asked what defendant the and, carjacked response, in he person defendant said with the he victim, kill would a white up tie and abandon a black but would victim.1 Club, Huggins they of the Trenton approached

As the area parking lot. Defendant then her MR2 into the Club’s drove red bitch,” bicycle Dunn, going and on his he get “I’m said driveway the Dunn Huggins’ car to rear Club. followed the returned, premises. Defendant front area of the remained the sitting in seat. Dunn driving Huggins the front the car with her front seat to sit ordered into the testified that defendant then Huggins lap. on her area under the MR2 to deserted Defendant drove red Bridge Dunn testified that defendant Trenton. Southard Street African-Americans appearance of two concerned about during investigation. of this nature Dunn did not make statement any during trial. assertion was first made Dunn This by

driving two-passenger sporty in a vehicle with a white female passenger. Huggins He operate asked to show him how to explanation, front-trunk on the car. After her defendant told Huggins get ignored into trunk of the car. He her offer to car, sit on the floor of the back of the and instead forced her into trunk, tiny required where she position. to lie in a fetal Defendant then drove back to the Trenton Club to retrieve his bicycle. This was corroborated two workers at the Trenton they Club who testified that sаw defendant at 9:15 a.m. walk to the rear parking of the lot bicycle. Throughout and return with a her car, confinement in the trunk of Huggins pleaded her help. for Huggins’ pleas help infuriated defendant. He commented to Dunn that he Huggins should have killed earlier.

Defendant drove the car back to the area under the Southard Bridge. Street Huggins He ordered out of the trunk and over to passenger by side open of the car door. While still outside car, defendant Huggins ordered to take off her clothes. He ignored Huggins’ mercy cries for because virgin, she was a derogatory instead made during comments to her the sexual Dunn, According assault. anally to raped Huggins, defendant despite pleas her stop pain. because of the Dunn testified that Huggins crying very shaking badly. Huggins

Defendant ordered back into the trank. Dunn testified act, that defendant contemplated then eventually his next deciding that he Huggins. would kill opened He the trunk of the car and ordered her again. out of the trunk Huggins As tried to climb out of the trank help, with Huggins Dunn’s defendant shot in the back of using her head the .22 Huggins caliber revolver. had been a prisoner approximately two hours the time defendant shot her for the first time.

Defendant dragged Huggins’ body then a short distance from the car to hide it under a discarded mattress located behind some bushes. He and Dunn then drove to defendant’s mother’s home to retrieve two they shovels. When scene, returned to the crime proceeded defendant Huggins. where he had hidden He then her, top point-blank in lying on shot her the mattress removed and threw the mattress back face to ensure that she was dead body. her onto nearby they area where and Dunn then walked to

Defendant brought body to dig They Huggins’ the shallow a hole. could grave they in grave dug, placed had her it face down filled the consisting old threw debris with dirt. Defendant also some clothes, grave onto the site. rocks and a crate through Huggins’ belongings leaving, went

Before defendant Testimony revealed taking and her ATM card. trial cash $30 Huggins’ throughout car that defendant drove around 17,1993. to sell the car in New of December He tried remainder City, unable to the sale. As stated York but was consummate earlier, an ATM revealed defendant bank records and video that following attempted Huggins’ card her murder. use ATM extensively by the news Huggins’ disappearance was covered Despite knowledge coverage, did having the news Dunn media. notify police she knew because defen- immediately about what not anyone if ever told about repeatedly her that she dant threatened looking” for her and harm happened, had he would “come what that threats close to her. claimed those people were She police. Defendant delayed reporting her the incident to from Huggins’ car Mercer Dunn he abandoned behind also told College, slashed. He covered County Community with its tires any fingerprints. conceal the car mud to Huggins gunshot a result of that died as two Experts testified Hug- experts opined prosecution’s that to the head. The wounds shot, or may long as hour after first gins have lived as one They thirty shot. noted possibly ten minutes after the second lungs. expert A in the defense autopsy an found dirt victim’s that that, immediately following the testifying that she died rebutted however, testimony, supported the contention last shot. Dunn’s immediately. Huggins did not die days Defendant was arrested ten after the murder on an arrest, unrelated matter. At the time pistol of the the .22 caliber during Huggins used the murder of was found on defendant. charged Defendant kidnapping and sexual assault inci- involving dents four other women that had occurred both before Huggins. and after the murder of County Jury 8, A Mercer Grand returned an indictment on June charged purposely knowingly defendant with causing or Huggins by conduct, murder, the death of felony Kristin his own first-degree kidnaping, first-degree robbery, first-degree aggra- assault, vated second-degree possession sexual weapon of a for an theft, purpose, third-degree unlawful fourth-degree credit card theft third-degree attempted unlawful use of a credit card. 1, 1994, July County On the Mercer Prosecutor’s Office served following notice of the aggravating support factors of a death (1) penalty prosecution against defendant: the murder was com- detection, purpose escaping trial, mitted for the apprehension, punishment or confinement for another offense committed (2) defendant; and the murder was committed while defendant engaged of, commit, in the attempt commission robbery kidnaping aggravated sexual assault. and/or and/or requested Defendant change County. venue from Mercer Ultimately it was determined that the case would be tried to a jury Burlington County. selected from The trial commenced in January 20, 1996, February 1996. On found defendant guilty on all counts.

In penalty phase, only the State relied on the evidence that it during had submitted guilt phase support the two asserted aggravating factors. The defense mitigat- submitted 180 ing concerning factors early defendant’s childhood and the abuse during he endured Presumably strategic pur- childhood. poses, the defense decided not to address defendant’s adolescent years during compiled juvenile which he had an extensive record. The trial court consolidated all mitigating those factors into one mitigating omnibus factor. penalty phase: a during experts defense were offered

Three All psychiatrist. a expert, psychologist child mitigating a extremely dysfunctional that was raised in an concluded defendant by his father. She family His mother was abused environment. pregnant, he when but married defendant’s father she became had family. neglected eventually mother abandoned the Defendant’s him, boyfriend him. The physically abused and she and her activity exposed to sexual experts also testified that defendant was age, At a involved violent young at home. defendant became drugs. activity, experimented School conduct and sexual point, his behavior. At one officials could not control antisocial mentally retarded and institutional- diagnosed was as defendant mood-elevating prescribed. ized. A medication was “rage a expert that defendant had manifested One concluded expert experiences as a child. The against women” because of neglected a child often as relied on the fact that defendant was school, difficulty in experienced which great deal of and had hospital. eventually led to in a state mental his institutionalization he have been classified as expert should concluded having age disorder” at thirteen. a “severe conduct drug pre-sentencing reрorts, use in his

Defendant admitted smoking marijuana regular on a basis. stating enjoyed he that, early as defendant reports Those also indicate from system regular justice on a the criminal entered re-entered adult, spending as an twelve convictions He accumulated basis. period entire from 1974 year prison during less than one out 1992. any for his actions. not shown remorse Defendant has trial, contempt all toward Throughout the defendant acted with case, attorney. including his He smirked in this own involved lack of jury present. His while the the State’s witnesses non-capital sen- during his poignantly underscored remorse repeated when, contrary instruc- tencing hearing the court’s they tions, Huggins and told them Mr. and Mrs. he addressed apology him an because his conviction. owed counts, capital beyond On found reasonable doubt aggravating outweighed the two factors the sole omnibus mitigating factor and sentenced defendant to death. On the non-capital remaining charges, defendant was sentenced plus sixty-five consecutive sentence that totaled life two terms years, eighty-two-and-a-half year parole disqualifier. with an capital

This Court affirmed defendant’s conviction for murder sentence, and his death as well as his convictions and sentences Harris, supra, 133, 156 N.J. at non-capital charges. for the 716 appeal, A requested proportionality .2d 458. On direct defendant 2C:11-3e, to N.J.S.A. pursuant review and the issue was reserved Harris, supra, separate 133, 156 N.J. at proceeding. for this 716 A .2d458. INDIVIDUAL PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW

II. purpose development proportionality general of review State, ly, Loftin, State v. 253, and in this 157 N.J. was reviewed II), denied, 266-77, (Loftin 724 cert. 528 U.S. 897, A.2d 129 120 229, (1999). S.Ct. 145 L.Ed.2d 193 At the conclusion of the II, proportionality individual review in we determined that Loftin proportionality methodologies review then in use were in need 453-457, Id. at of review and reconsideration. 724 A.2d 129. Accordingly, appointed we the Honorable David Baime S. as a Special Master to findings reexamine and make and recommenda relating proportionality tions to the methodology by used Marshall, (1992) Court since State v. 109, 130 N.J. 613 A.2d 1059 (Marshall II), cert. denied 507 U.S. 929, 1306, 113 S.Ct. 122 (1993). Judge L.Ed.2d 694 report Baime’s enabled the Court to aspects reevaluate certain of review. In proportionality individual Proportionality re Project, Review 71, 161 N.J. 735 A.2d 528 I). (1999) (Proportionality Review Judge findings We reviewed Baime’s and recommendations and accepted most. We concluded that the universe of cases for proportionality review eligible should include all defendants for penalty, irrespective the death capital prosecution, of a as we had

315 84-87, at 528. use before. Id. 735 A.2d We abandoned concluded 528, test, of but deter- the index-of-outcomes id. A.2d frequency analysis through a modified to continue use of mined 87-89, subcategories. factors test with fewer Id. at salient A.2d 528. among proportionality of the re

This case is the first Proportionality in the wake conducted the Court views before, two-part I. remains a framework Review As there proportion reviewing determine whether it is a death sentence to ate: numerical is a statistical measure of the

The first part frequency analysis, with which similar cases have resulted sentences death. frequency judicial comparing precedent-seeking a traditional review, second is way part is whether a defendant’s sentence freakish files similar cases determine death or the result influences. or aberrational of impermissible 528.] 161 N.J. at A.2d I, 77, Review 735 [.Proportionality supra, review, Through proportionality we seek to determine “whether aberrational, compares particular not whether it death sentence is 334, 352, Bey, perfectly other v. 137 N.J. sentences.” State (1994) 1164, 115 IV), (Bey cert. denied 513 S.Ct. 645A.2d 685 U.S. II, (1995) 1131, (citing supra, 130 N.J. L.Ed.2d 1093 Marshall 130 1059). 131, is the Showing disproportionate that it is 613 A.2d DiFrisco, 148, 162, 142 662A.2d burden. State v. N.J. defendant’s (1995) (DiFrisco III). 442

A. Cases Universe of issue, purposes threshold the “universe cases” 'for As a All must be determined. death- comparison to defendant’s case considered, they capitally not are whether or were eligible cases prosecuted, prosecute capitally “is not because decision not necessarily a reflection defendant’s lack of deathworthi [the] on 277, 292, 1121 v. N.J. 731 A.2d Harvey, ness.” State 159 III). universe of cases (1999)(emphasis added)(Harvey Once the determined, begin. may proportionality is review

316 categories

Thirteen basic have been created that differenti capital statutory aggravating ate murder cases based on factors. categories The thirteen are:

(A) Victim is a Public Servant;

(B) Prior without A above; Murder Conviction (C) Killing Contract without A-B above; (D) (subdivided (1) (2) aggravated Sexual Assault without A-C above into other); (E) (subdivided (1) (2) aggravated Victims without A-D above Into Multiple other); (F) (subdivided (1) (2) without A-E above into and 3 Robbery home, business, other); (G) without A-F above; Torture/Depravity (H) Abduction without above; A-G (I) above; Arson without A-H (J) Detection without A-I above; Escape (K) Burglary without above; A-J

(L) Grave Risk without A-K above;

(M) Victim Under 14 Years Old without A-L above. groups attempt Certain are subdivided criteria that to distin guish the murder based on “circumstances that serve either to aggravate mitigate or to the blameworthiness of the defendants in II, 328, supra, those cases.” 157 N.J. at 724 A .2d 129 Loftin Martini, (1994) (quoting 3, 33, State v. 139 N.J. 651 A.2d 949 (Martini II), denied, 875, 116 203, cert. 516 U.S. S.Ct. 133L.Ed.2d (1995)); III, Harvey supra, see 159 N.J. at 1121. A.2d I, In Proportionality Review principle we adhered to the unique assignment in principle the salient factor “[T]he review. is factors, though may multiple that even a case identifying contain e.g., killing public official, robbing torturing a official and or assigned category the case is to one for salient-factor review.” I, 89, Proportionality supra, Review 161 N.J. at 735 A.2d 528. principal death-eligible Where the salient factor in a murder is a assault, (“AOC”) sexual the Administrative Office of the Courts category has classified such “D” eases as homicides. Defendant’s category. case falls Judge into that Baime has recommended subdividing category D purposes analysis of into two (D-l category) non-aggravat killings categories: aggravated I, Review 161 N.J. (D-2 at category). Proportionality killings ed distinguish 88, sexual A. 528. The recommendation was 2d terror” “particular violence or murders committed with assault defendants as juries prosecutors tended to view such because 88, Generally, Id. deathworthy. cases that 735 A.2d 528. more aggravated category include murders the D-l fall within beating, physical gun, from a knife or multiple wounds involve pain, to cause involve mutilation or wounds intended murders that emphasized involving Judge Baime a minor victim. and murders among those guidelines distinguishing for strict when the need defining” subjectivity in “to avoid the inherent cases so as subcategories. objective, in December 1999 of that the AOC

In furtherance D-1 and D-2 typology distinguish between the proposed a categories: Category wounds, such cases in which the victim suffers multiple D-1 — Includes gunshot to the head. or blows wounds wounds, multiple stab multiple

multiple of such as wounds, in which the victim suffers types Also includes cases multiple strangled suffocat resulting then or stabbed, the victim is beaten, those when Beatings category fractured death, unconsciousness, result in in this typically ed. injuries. in which the defendant inflicts Also includes cases internal bones, and/or which to, are not limited cases include, than death. but rather Examples pain, (or similar) injuries genital cigarette to the area, burns, to the involve stab wounds injuries biting, Examiner can or wounds which a Medical victim’s caused by eyes, [ ] in which the victim was cause Also includes cases attest were intended to pain. injuries age regardless of death. victim’s or cause under the single Category fatal wound, cases in which the victim suffers D-2 —Includes gunshot head. or a wound to the heart, throat, wound to the a slit such as stab contributing single with no death, which involve a cause Also includes cases bruising category injuries. Beatings in isolated in this result only typically generally harm, rather than subdue, and are intended lacerations, minor victim. matter, D-2 assigned to the the AOC has defendant In this age of fourteen stating not under category the victim was killed, only single fatal suffered “a and because she when she injuries. contributing no other wound” with Propor- Judge Baime’s recommendations When we reviewed I, analysis frequency should tionality Review we agreed that the 318 test, only that that test should be

consist of the salient-factors 87-89, subcategories. modified contain fewer 161 N.J. at 735 subcategories Only A a few discrete were recommended .2d 528. retention; classification. one of them was sexual assault object did not to the recommendation Id. at 735 A.2d 528. We category adopted the sexual assault of cases when we subdivide Judge general improving recommendations on the salient- Baime’s I, 87-88, Proportionality in Review 161 factors test N.J. 735 difficulty highlights A .2d 528. But the instant matter subcategorize attempting to cases within this classification of death-eligible cases. objective

Trying consistently distinguish to create criteria that among degree murders on the of the sexual assault basis of particular problematic. violence and terror is Cases of this nature factors, inherently subjective particularly involve when the deter- linedrawing supposed “particular minative is to focus on violence ” added). (emphasis or terror matter, are We unconvinced the AOC’s assessment of this D-2, assigning “non-aggravated” subcategory correctly it to the degree “particular reflects the violence or terror” defendant Huggins. inflicted on We believe defendant’s case is more similar category D-l to the cases that fall within the than D-2. The Huggins evidence militates favor of a conclusion that did not die quickly single gunshot from a to the head. She suffered as prisoner approximately terrorized of the defendant for two hours. She was brutalized the sexual assault and she did not die from a single gunshot likely to the wound head. She died sometime after gunshot the later wound second to her face. appear appropriately

The facts of this case to fit more in the D- However, subcategory. we need not so conclude because both parties agree category D here that the cases should be consolidat- purposes reviewing approach ed for defendant’s case. That is compelling more under the circumstances because of our view of questionable appropriateness category of the D-2 and because category D-2 compare has so few cases with which to defen- murder, analysis complete of defendant’s perform To dant. appropriate category D offers a more of the entire consolidation to assess deathworthiness. sampling cases like defendant’s to those compare of defendant’s case Accordingly, we will the facts category D a whole. within the similar cases Analysis Frequency B. proportionality analysis step in the

Frequency is the first I, supra, 161 N.J. at process. Proportionality Review review methodology, helps it Through simple its statistical A.2d 528. in similar frequency of death sentences whether the us determine supports a culpability involving defendants with similar cases penalty in the case before the death sentence determination that Chew, 183, 201-02, 731 v. 159 N.J. is not aberrational. State us (1999) (Chew II). test allows The salient-factors A.2d 1070 cases, with other similar compare the case under review Court to factor, i.e., the by their most salient distinguish those cases and to to sentence a likely influence the decision fact that would most to death. defendant frequency which the death for the

Turning to the raw data category D of cases review both the penalty imposed, is we will following summarizes that death-eligible eases. The chart and all and excluded: sentence is included when defendant’s death data Cases Death-sen PENALTY PHASE Cases tencing rate WHERE THE PROCEEDED AMONGALL THE DEATH TO Principal DEATH-ELIGIBLE PENALTY PENALTY WAS salient-factors IMPOSED CASES PHASE AND THE NUMBER OF CASES Assault D. Sexual Eligible 15% 35% (fa) 59 Death Cases (%9) 14% (fa) 32% (fa) Exclude Harris Aggravated Assault D-l. Sexual (fc) (%) Eligible 17% 49% 35% (fa) 47 Death Cases (%) 15% 6k) 48% 32% (fa) Exclude Harris D-2. Assault Other Sexual (fe) (fe) (® 8% Eligible 33% Cases 25% 12 Death (%) (9ii) 0% 0% Exclude Harris 18% (fa) Death-Eligible All Cases (5fa) (I7fe) 11% Eligible 30% Cases 39% (%e) 455 Death (5M (%6) (17M 11% 29% Harris 39% Exclude category D cases are test demonstrates that The salient-factors “deathworthy” of the other death- than most considered more D) (Category proceed to categories. cases eligible Sexual assault (44%) percentage than the overall penalty phase higher at a (39%). Accordingly, proceeding death-eligible average for cases reveals penalty phase not aberrational. The test also the death is D, death-sentencing Category percent, fifteen is rate that the eleven-percent death-sentencing rate of slightly greater than the Thus, death-eligible full cases. the 455 cases universe likely prosecutions are to involve sexual assault cases more likely penalty and are more to have a death seek the death imposed. sentence excluded, death sentence is the numbers do

When defendant’s except category. D-2 change significantly, in the Defendant is not category only defendant in the D-2 to have been sentenced to the by in death. That fact is accentuated the small number of cases However, previously unper- category. D-2 stated we are similarly D-2 is more situated to defen- suaded defendant subcategory, purposes dants than defendants in the D-l and for analysis considering category D In this we are as a whole. category subcategory D nor the D-l do the numbers neither the change significantly when defendant is excluded. We note also proceeded penalty phase in in the cases that to the both the sentence, subcategories, including D-2 D-l and defendant’s penalty imposed roughly in a third death cases. applied,

As the salient-factors test demonstrates that de disproportionate. imposition not fendant’s death sentence is in in of a death sentence this case is consistent with other cases Morton, was found. See State v. disproportionality which no 165 (2000) 235, 245-48, N.J. cited therein. 757 A.2d 184 cases death-sentencing in though category Even rates D cases are rates, death-sentencing evidencing dispro similar to the overall no analysis, portionality part of our nevertheless we turn to this review, which, precedent-seeking prior proportionality re

321 views, greater weight frequency we have accorded than review. ‍‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‍55, 88, (1999) II); Cooper, State v. 159 N.J. (Cooper 731 A.2d 1000 III, (“We 308, Harvey supra, see also 159 N.J. at 731 A.2d 1121 consistently placed greater precedent-seeking have reliance on review.”); III, frequency supra, review than on DiFrisco N.J. 184, 442; (same); II, 209, supra, 662 A.2d Chew 159 N.J. at review); (acknowledging precedent-seeking A.2d 1070 reliance on II, (“We 296, supra, 157 N.J. at 724 A.2d 129 have Loftin consistently placed [precedent-seeking] our reliance on review analytic apply because of the difficulties we have encountered in ing frequency analysis.”). Precedentr-Seeking

C. Revieiv review, precedent-seeking In death-eligible “we examine cases similar to defendant’s case to determine whether his death sen compared tence when is aberrant to the sentences received II, 210, supra, defendants in those other cases.” Chew 159 N.J. at accord, 1070; 70, Cooper, supra, 731 A.2d 159 N.J. at 731 A.2d 1000.

1. Relevant Factors step precedent-seeking requires

The first review exami major culpability. nation of defendant’s criminal Three consider (a) blameworthiness, guide analysis: ations our defendant’s moral (b) conduct, degree of victimization associated with defendant’s (c) II, 210, supra, defendant’s character. Chew 159 N.J. at 1070; II, supra, 731 A.2d Marshall 130 N.J. at 613 A.2d 1059. (a) Moral Blameivorbhiness Defendant’s blameworthiness, reviewing

In a defendant’s moral we that examine factors include justification or of mental or

motive, excuse, defect, evidence distur- premeditation, knowledge age bance, of of the defendant’s victim, level, helplessness maturity planning in and defendant’s involvement the murder. (citing II, II, 157 N.J. at 129 Marshall 130 336, A.2d [Loftin supra, supra, 1059).] N.J. at 613 A.2d in the instant matter reveals that of those factors Consideration highly blameworthy. is defendant coldly pre-meditated. murder Defendant was Huggins’ was carjack get out find so that he could to a vehicle to determined he Once he and drive the business wanted to rob. the rain to carjacked Huggins, separate Dunn on two occasions that he told going Huggins kill for two hours as her. terrorized he being categorized a sexual prisoner. Despite as- defendant’s murder, this not occur in the tumult of a sexual sault murder did part lengthy and culminat- It was of a more terrorization assault. ordeal, During shooting. in this defendant con- еd a calculated Huggins cramped, to the small trunk her own car while he fined only twice—once around Trenton. was allowed out drove She be shot. The cold-bloodedness and be sodomized later to brutality of are evidenced the fact that defendant defendant him kill specifically Huggins. asked Dunn to watch killing highly Huggins Defendant’s motivation for add to his blameworthy jury specifically status. The found defendant detection, trial, punish- Huggins escape apprehension, killed support Although rely we do on it to ment or confinement. not finding highly blameworthy, that defendant is we also note our person own the effect that kill the defendant’s words to he would carjacked he if whose vehicle the victim were white. justification present There is no evidence of or excuse this Huggins intemper- provoke did defendant to a sudden ease. not frenzy. act. Nor did he kill in the midst sexual ate her of violent contrary, a helpless To the for two hours she was victim of a cool carjacker. rape was latter end part and deliberate of the Huggins helpless aware her abduction. Defendant was of how fact, steps In felt. defendant took affirmative to ensure she helpless. carjacked gunpoint her would feel He and then in the locked her small trunk of her car. When she was later trunk, from the found isolated released she herself an Then, Huggins sexually unfamiliar area. assaulted defendant despite pleas mercy, only her which could have contributed to Huggins’ existing feelings despair. Dunn any did not offer assistance because of her During Huggins’ own fear of defendant. hours, final any she was alone and steps could not take to alleviate feeling helplessness. her

Turning state, to the defendant’s experts mental three testified during penalty phase. Their review was limited to defendant’s young mental presumably condition as a child because the defense did not want specific knowledge to have of his criminal experts record. The mentally concluded that defendant was dis- experience. turbed because of his experts specifi- childhood Two cally concluded that as a child he suffered from “severe conduct disorder.” experts grew up severely dys- noted that defendant in a family

functional environment. He being witnessed his mother by abused family his father. His father abandoned the when very young. defendant was neglected Defendant’s mother her child, son’s needs as a him exposed allowed to be to situations physically that were mentally both abusive. Defendant even- tually engaged in activity boy. violent and sexual while still a records, beginning early School kindergarten, as indicated that problems. defendant exhibited severe behavioral When such is- brought attention, sues were to his mother’s she shifted blame to system appropriate steps school and failed to take to deal with problems. her son’s mental The school had defendant evaluated psychiatrist years when he was nine old. It was recom- therapy, mended that defendant attend but his mother did not see therapeutic to it that those needs were met. twelve,

By age stepped the court in and institutionalized defen- dant. Hospital Doctors at Trenton State determined that he adjustment suffered from mild retardation and reaction to child- custody hood. He was released to his mother’s after an initial evaluation, thirty-day pursu- but was committed five months later ant to another court order. disruptive Defendant continued to be center, psychiatric while in the children’s so he was transferred to hospital. improved the adult section of the His behavior once he Although hospital daily regime Thorazine. placed on a otherwise, custody of released recommended defendant was year later. his mother a on

Despite poor resulting debilitating effects this childhood defendant, persuasive not that should the evidence was defendant culpability involving Huggins. his for his acts We be relieved of early only specifically experts that focused on defendant’s note moral youth, long time distant from the facts that determine his a fact, 17,1993 culpability his In find that for December actions. we age of nothing mitigating there about defendant’s or level is forty-one at maturity years the time of the murder. He was old at time, Further, enough right wrong. old know from because justice system, previous experience his with the criminal defen- of consequences there his dant knew that would be criminal for cognitive drug alcohol or induced diminishment of his actions. No morning. judgment affected his that Defendant was functions abducted, viciously raped when murdered stone-cold sober he just happened driving path, a victim to cross vehicle he who his a carjack. blameworthy. highly decided to He is (b) Degree Victimization of the level of victimization endured because of

To determine conduct, brutality consider the “violence and of the defendant’s we II, murder,” “injury as well as the to nondecedent victims.” Chew II, 210-11, supra, (citing at A.2d 159 N.J. 731 1070 Marshall 1059). supra, Again, A.2d we find 130 N.J. defendant’s high culpability criminal because this review demonstrates be Huggins of the murder was violent and brutal. Huggins being for over while abduct- terrorized two hours ed, by raped and shot defendant. She was confined to the small compartment during portion good trunk her car this ordeal. mercy. raped Huggins despite pled Defendant fact that she Huggins back trunk car Defendant then forced into the of the Deciding after it was kill her vicious sexual assault. time to watch, Huggins, opened Dunn to defendant asked the trunk Huggins shot attempted the back of the head as she to crawl trunk, out of knowing not going what defendant was to do to experts agreed her next. All Huggins being survived after shot the head dumped once. She was in a lot littered with refuse, and a discarded top mattress was thrown on of her. presented Forensic evidence support at trial finding would that she thirty survived from ten to being minutes after shot again defendant when he returned. The totality review of the Huggins’ last two hours alive lead to the conclusion that her high. large victimization In part, the heinousness of defen- heightened by dant’s crime is terrorizing through- of his victim out her abduction until her death.

(c) Character of Defendant

Finally, we must examine the character of the defendant by looking “prior record, violence, at his other unrelated acts of authorities, cooperation remorse, with capacity and for rehabilita II, 210-11, tion.” supra, Chew 159 N.J. at 731 A.2d (citing 1070 II, 1059). 155, Marshall supra, 130 light N.J. at 613 A.2d In of the fact that spent year defendant had prison less than a out of span twenty years, over a of and because he has shown -no actions, remorse for his consideration of defendant’s character only heightens culpability. our overall view of his criminal prior

Defendant an juve- has extensive criminal record. As a nile, mischief, he was arrested for malicious battery, assault and petty larceny, probation, running away home, violation of from and purse adult, snatching. As an prior he had seven indictable convictions and twelve in gravity convictions total. The of defen- dant’s through years. arrests as an adult escalated He had receiving assault, been property, arrested for stolen trespass, shoplifting, larceny robbery in earlier his criminal career. More recent robbery, offenses have included weapons armed offenses, officer, battery police arson, assault and on a aggra- vated assault. prison,

While in defendant committed more than one hundred sexually inmates, infractions assaulting that included threatening 326 attacking had physically inmates. He officers

corrections Huggins, killed only for five months before he prison out of been days Huggins murder for four ten after the and was arrested aggravated kidnaping that separate sexual assault and incidents immediately Huggins’ murder. before after occurred throughout proceedings proclaimed Defendant his innocence family being society for case. He blames and the victim’s this is not a prosecuted Huggins. the murder of Rehabilitation goal. realizable

(d) Conclusion culpability is categories

All three show that defendant’s overall steps carry took deliberate to high. Defendant affirmative and Huggins. Although mental out the murder of childhood disorder documented, history substantially outweighed by is other high moral factors that demonstrate defendant’s level of blame- amount of victimization this worthiness. The associated with significant redeeming qualities is and there are about crime no Accordingly, we find criminal defendant’s character. defendant’s high. culpability be Comparison Group

2. Defendant’s requires Precedent-seeking review the examination factually “[w]hether cases similar defendant’s case determine disproportionate comparison is defendant’s sentence II, culpability comparison group.” supra, levels of Loftin Generally, “employ[ A.2d we ] N.J. 129. the same comparison group as that used the salient-factors test” when II, conducting precedent-seeking supra, 159 at review. Chew N.J. 214, 731 1070. A.2d whole, D category,

We start with to determine that are most similar to the of defendant’s case.2 The cases facts 2 The cases the State and the Public Defender for of offered by purposes precedent-seeking length are in A. review discussed Appendix

327 agree parties Bey, on Cunningham, fifteen cases for our review: Dennis(2), Edwards, Dickerson, Johnson, Marrero, Mincey, E. Prater, Reese, Rivera, Thomas, Spraggins, J. Williams and Zola.3 proposes Defendant an additional twelve for the Court consider: Dennis(l), Bolinger, Brockington, Chippero, Clowney, R. Ed- wards, James, Koedatich, Luciana, Muhammad, Norris G. In comparison groups, Williams. to both defendant asserts that “deathworthy” he is less than the other defendants because there killing was Huggins. less victimization associated “[T]he concerning ultimate decision cases be which are to for precedent-seeking prov considered review” remаins within the I, 91, ince of this Proportionality Court. Review N.J. at 735 161 hereinafter, Except A accept .2d 528. as noted we and will exam agreed-upon ine all proposed cases the additional twelve cases by defendant. presented find that

We the cases for our fall five review into categories, categories distinct and we will these use for ease (1) comparison. Category discusses eases in which the death (2) penalty imposed. Category in which the includes cases (3) not penalty. Category State did seek death addresses (4) pled guilty. Category cases in which the defendant includes in which cases the defendant was not murder. Final- convicted of (5) ly, category penalty cases in not discusses which death imposed phase. in the penalty From our of all of the review cases category above, in each identified we find that defendant’s factual (1). presented category is most in situation similar the cases (1) Category prosecutions Bey, Marko James Williams and James (1). comprise Zola, category Turning Zola first to J. Williams and juries imposed penalty. both the death This Court then Zola, reversed those 112 sentences. State v. N.J. 548 A.2d (1988) (remanding penalty for second trial because court agreed Spraggins category. cases, Of the Marrero and the D-2 fall in upon remaining category. thirteen are the D-1 328 aggravating find factors jury that it must that to instruct

failed charg when beyond reasonable doubt outweigh mitigating factors Williams, 113 v. N.J. penalty phase); State jury during ing first (1988) inadequate (finding that of combination 550 A.2d judge voir dire and during failure trial to dismiss questioning penalty guilt juror required reversal of and prospective for cause remand, pled guilty Zola both proceedings). On J. Williams and life sentences. and received review, we with the proportionality start purposes

For of our Zola were found to be of J. Williams and fact that the actions juries. comparison In by separate two death punishable more, deathworthy. cases, equally, Harris is if not both Williams and Zola is similar to the cases of J. Harris’ ease murdered, sexually in the victim was assaulted because each However, may regarded Zola be as “less Williams and robbed. presented at their deathworthy” than Harris because evidence was that Williams and Zola were severe- trials that demonstrated both contrast, committing their In no ly intoxicated when crimes. or presented suggested Harris was intoxicated evidence was sexually drugs carjacked, assaulted the influence of when he under sober, thoughtful Huggins. Harris was delib- and murdered Huggins’ victimization and throughout the two hours erate murder. Zola,

Further, only circumstantial evidence of there was was clearer in Harris’ case. sexual assault. The sexual assault Finally, mitigating presented on more extensive evidence presented Williams and Zola than that for Harris behalf both J. under influence of extreme and the found Zola be Zola, comparison In emotional disturbance. to J. Williams deathworthy. equally is more His death sentence Harris he, they, regarded be aberrational since like received cannot jury-imposed death sentences. Bey’s supports

Review of case also the conclusion Harris’ Harris, Bey kidnaped Like disproportionate. not sentence is Bey’s Arguably victimization case robbed his victim. level higher Bey effectively “stomped” is because his victim to death. However, abduction, the imprisonment two hours of and assault Huggins leading up shooting endured to her should not be over- comparin being carjacked, looked when the two After cases. she car, was into trunk her only forced the small to be for released purposes gratification. of Harris’ sexual was then back She forced claustrophobic compartment eventually into the before he shot her may once. Evidence at trial that indicated she have lived for some time even gunshot after the second in face. In the between shootings, dragged these two she was in some distance to be left ground an isolated area on the awith mattress thrown her. over Huggins comparable level victimization endured is to Bey’s in the victim case.

Also, mitigating presented Bey’s more in evidence was than case presented Although Bey was for defendant. both and Harris were children, neglected Bey’s as family two members testified about family childhood, including drugs and his abuse of and alcohol. placed His mother on herself blame her the for son’s conduct. (1988). II, 123, 147, Bey State v. 112 N.J. 548 A .2d 887 Unlike Harris, Bey severely was intoxicated when he the committed Bey barely enough eligible crime. We also note that old to be Nevertheless, penalty for the he death when his victim. murdered jury imposed Bey the death for it penalty the did for Harris. Thus, sentence, Bey’s, compared Harris’ when is not aberrant. summarize, considering category

To similar in D when cases the penalty where the death imposed, Harris’ sentence is not so, disproportionate. equally deathworthy, He is not than if more Williams, Bey, penalty. Zola J. all of whom the death received (2)

Category (2) category We in two include cases in this universe of in which penalty: cases did not seek the Sam State death Mincey Clowney. Mincey Clowney and Sharob were Both II, 99-101, in Cooper supra, at addressed 159 N.J. A.2d 1000. beat, Mincey raped strangled seventy- Defendant Samuel a woman, three-year-old belongings. prose- stole her He was one of police identified years later that murder when cuted six for separate investigation of a belongings during the the victim’s felony murder. him murder and A convicted crime. Harris, Mincey pursue in not that prosecutor in did Unlike II, supra, 159 N.J. Cooper capital as a case. We noted matter 1000, 98, prosecutor’s decision our review of the at 731 A.2d Mincey The AOC’s against was hindered. forego capital a case may con- prosecutor Mincey have summary surmises that any reliance on statute of limitations barred cluded capital a provided basis aggravating factor that could have no has 731 A.2d 1000. There been prosecution. Id. Accordingly, point. on we adhere to elucidation this further legal impedi- seemingly there correct assessment that were AOC’s prosecution Mincey. mounting capital against There ments Indeed, in matter. the impediment was the instant no similar against aggravating by the State Harris factors offered found both Mincey that defendant’s present. to does not demonstrate be disproportionate. death sentence is murder, murder, felony ag- Clowney was conviсted of Sharob murder, assault, attempted and gravated sexual two counts of possessory aggregate an sentence various offenses. He received forty-year ineligibil- twenty years parole a plus of with term of life Clowney’s history ity. previously of emotional We have cited may instability suggesting the victim have and evidence purchased drugs from defendant in our identification of those likely forgo prosecutor’s have the decision to factors to influenced Clowney, capital prosecution. at 1000. a Id. 731 A.2d Unlike instability at the time of evidence of Harris’ mental trial, no well at there was murder not documented thus Reli- impediment pursuing penalty to the death for him. similar that, Clowney unlike ance is also undermined the fact on Harris, kidnaping robbery. of The case is he was not convicted dissimilar. Mincey Clowney provide little for this cases assistance each, readily

proportionality appears review. In to be a there deciding forego capital prosecution. inferable basis for to In this case, forego there were no pursuit capital similar reasons to of a Thus, prosecution. Mincey reliance Clowney on cases support not disproportionate. does a conclusion that Harris’ case is (S)

Category turnWe next to those pled guilty cases which the defendant (3) withstanding of capital prosecution. Category instead a in- Dennis(2), following Edwards, cludes the Eugene cases: Jerome Bolinger, parties agreed only Robert Otis James. The to Dennis(2) and purposes proportionality Edwards for review. Bolinger Public Defender offered and James. We will review all. Bolinger

We find that the and James cases are dissimilar in prosecutor nature Harris’ case and accept the decision of the guilty plea pursuing a capital prosecution lieu of in each is easily prosecutor’s pursue reconcilable with decision to and the jury’s impose decision to death sentence for Both Harris. Bolinger heavily and James day they were on intoxicated prosecuted. committed the murder which each was Both also history had well documented mental defect and had diminish- capacity ed Bolinger the time of the crime. was a Vietnam drugs veteran who was addicted to and alcohol and who became daily. He burglarizing apartment intoxicated his victim’s get away, when she carne home. heWhile tried to the victim saw attacked, assaulted, sexually him. He impul- and killed her. The murder, coupled Bolinger’s sive nature of the history drug use, may prosecutor’s alcohol have influenced the decision accept guilty plea. his daily drug heavily

James also was a and alcohol abuser. He was day intoxicated on the he entered the home of his victim and sexually importantly, assaulted and murdered her. More there history a attempted psychiat- was documented of suicide and adult Harris, hospitalization. ric kidnaping Unlike there was no or robbery in Bolinger involved James’ case. Because both distinguishable James are from Harris due to their demonstrated murders, they are both capacity at the time of their diminished deathworthy than Harris. less Edwards, deathworthy as appear as

Turning Dennis and both victim, her up raped her and then stabbed Dennis tied his Harris. up carpeting dispose body, wrapped in of her he it to death. To rape in the of his participated it down a hill. Edwards rolled They co-conspirator, Michael Prater. victim with his prostitute drugs in promise with a of lured her to Edwards’ home had unsuccessfully tried When Prater exchange for sexual relations. her, stabbing her while Edwards suffocated to kill the victim more times. her an additional three four Prater stabbed committing four other homicides charged Dennis been had plea guilty. of In of the that he entered a one at the time by a “demon.” He he claimed to have been influenced murders prosecutions may reasonably concerned the other have been have aggravating have factors that would would been considered Thus, advantage pursuing of a in the resulted a death sentence. reasonably for He was plea agreement may be inferred Dennis. thirty-year a term of two consecutive life terms with sentenced to life terms that each includ- parole ineligibility, and two concurrent explanation thirty-year parole ineligibility. a No for ed term prosecution’s forego capital prosecution may be decision from the inferred AOC summaries. police. prior He had no record and

Edwards confessed to co-conspirator in history drugs He was a no or alcohol abuse. victim, killing. joined not He the murder of his but did initiate the victim. confession and in after Prater first stabbed His prosecution testimony agreement provide needed for the began co-conspirator, as the fact the homicide with an well as relations, may exchange drugs for apparent agreement to sexual guilty prosecutor’s accept decision to well have influenced the plea noncapital charge. ato

Notwithstanding inability our to understand the reasons Dennis, life prosecutor’s we do not find that decision (3) imposed Category Harris’ death sentences cases render unexplainable prosecutorial sentence aberrational. The one deci- sion in not capital prosecution Dennis does cause Harris’ to be James, disproportionate. Edwards, Bolinger, As for mitigating crime, capacity factors of diminished at the time of the defect, documented of evidence mental and the confession and testimony against a co-conspirator provide ample reason for dis- tinguishing those from disproportionali- cases Harris. We find no ty in Harris’ death sentence of result those cases. (U)

Category (4), category We next consider which includes cases where the guilty defendants were not found murder. Defense counsel proposed category: the two cases that fall in this Founcill Brock- ington and facially Walter B. Norris. Both cases are dissimilar because, from Harris’ many case like so proposed by other cases defendant, Broekington and charged defendants Norris were not kidnaping robbery. with or

Broekington sexually strangled thirty-four- assaulted and his year-old victim her summary vague home. The AOC is about Broekington whether and the victim knew one another or were strangers. ambiguity This about origins of the encounter Broekington may between the prose- victim and have affected the proceed to non-capitally accept Brockington’s cutor’s decision aggravated addition, plea to manslaughter. Broekington In had prior regular no criminal record and claimed to have been a year prior user cocaine two homicide. origins of the encounter between Norris victim are ambiguous. security guard kicking

also A witnessed Norris “something” bleeding lying which turned out be a naked woman injuries ground. multiple on the She died her face and head. A charged condom was found at the scene. Norris was aggravated murder and three counts of sexual assault. He was aggravated manslaughter thirty convicted and sentenced to years fifteen-year parole ineligibility with a term. All other charges were dismissed. remotely background have a Brockington, Norris did not

Like well- Norris had a resembling character of Harris. the terrible illness, including institutionalization history mental of documented Broekington’s Norris’ and of both an adult. The murders while exchange. a sexual With part of violent victims occurred as during a abduction Hams, two-hour was a calculated act murder as a engaged in a brutal sexual act of which he over the course and Huggins’ car and abduction aside to his theft of terroristic cases, Brockington and two shooting her. Those eventual of They sup- do not Norris, distinguishable from Harris’ case. are disproportionate. finding Harris’ is port a sentence (5) Category (5) universe of cases within Harris’ Category includes those penalty. The jury impose the in the did not death cases which (5): category following fall agreed to cases that within parties the Johnson, Dickerson, Adam Mar- Cunningham, Keith Scott Bruce Prater, Reese, rero, Riv- Anthony Seymour Rafael Michael John era, Jerry Christopher Defendant also Spraggins and Thomas. (5): category in of cases that are found Richard offered a number Edwards, Koedatich, Luciana, Mark Rash- Chippero, Ralph James and Williams. eed Muhammad Gerald Muhammad murdered We first that both R. Edwards and note not has that those two cases should children. Defendant conceded proportionality presented in for have included the cases been case agree, accordingly do not consider either review. We have will not the Koedatich case. We further. We also consider 76-77, 1000, A.2d already supra, in 159 N.J. at 731 Cooper, held assigned been Koedatich should not have that defendant James category. specifically We found the sexual assault-murder kidnaping [although in for murder and the State its of Koedatich prosecution aggravating alleged of murdered the victim in the course as factors that defendant jury found assault, as well as to for sexual the assault, sexual detection escape aggravating neither of those factors. [Id. 1000.] A.2d review, Therefore, stage precedent-seeking of during the final to, only agreed well as the parties focus on we those cases remaining three Chippero, eases offered defendant: Luciana and Williams. Within universe this of eases we first note that juries imposed 5), have (category life sentence twelve times 1). imposed penalty only the death in (category three cases Close imposition review demonstrates that of penalty the death Harris is understandable and an compared not aberration when (5) in category group defendants of cases because of the high level victimization associated with the murder Huggins, present degree because Harris did not mitigating the same presented by evidence as that defendants cases which jury imposed a life sentence. Harris could reason- ably highly culpable conclude that he was deserving of a death sentence. blameworthiness, considering

In jury moral the in Harris’ case reviewing was limited to up to defendant’s childhood thirteen years age of deciding impose penalty. when whether to the death experts The defense’s concluded that as a child defendant suffered a from behavioral experts disorder. But the were limited to reviewing only many records of Harris’ childhood. Unlike of the (5), category in attempt cases no link was made to defendant’s problems childhood to behavior on December 1992. Addi- tionally, c(5)(a)(extreme allege defendant not did mental or emo- distress) c(5)(d)(diminished tional or capacity) mitigating as fac- tors, c(5)(h)(catch-all) but instead relied on the factor4. No N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3c(5)(a) mitigating jury that is a reads in full it factor if the finds: The defendant was under the of extreme mental or emotional influence disturbance insufficient to constitute a defense to prosecution. 1-3c(5)(d) mitigating jury N.J.S.A. 2C:1 states that it is a the factor if finds: wrongfulness The defendant’s to the or capacity of his conduct to appreciate significantly conform his conduct the of law the requirements as a intoxication, result of mental or impaired disease or defect but not a degree a sufficient constitute defense to prosecution. 1-3c(5)(h) mitigating 2C:1 N.J.S.A. that is a Finally, states it factor where the jury or court finds: other factor which is Any relevant to defendant's character or or record circumstances of offense. [Ibid.] any problems psychological show that offered to

evidence was at the time of him as an adult as a child affected Harris endured easily distinguishable reason, Harris’ case is his crime. For that jury- a category in D that received from those defendants purposes of contrast. imposed examine each life sentence. We an abusive childhood Cunningham suffered Defendant Bruce suffered may in nature to the abuse be said to be similar that However, during Cunningham’s penal- expert testified an Harris. a mental disease ty phase suffered from that the defendant jury paranoid personality disorder. The as a defect result e(5)(a) c(5)(d) applied mitigating as agreed, finding that finding made in Cunningham’s No in case. similar factors Harris’ case. c(5)(a) found that jury in Keith Dickerson’s case defendant c(5)(d) mitigating admitted applied as factors. Evidence was and, long history drug abuse suffered from a

that Dickerson result, experienced paranoia he and hallucinations. bouts mitigat- Jerry Spraggins presented mental condition Defendant jury’s may to the decision to ing have contributed evidence psychiatrist death. A Spraggins to life rather than sentence Spraggins voyeurism, from an uncontrolla- testified that suffered c(5)(d) (diminished ble need to view woman. found (no c(5)(f) Sprag- prior history) applied criminal capacity) and Harris, man- Spraggins’ case gins’ case. Unlike defense crime aged link or defect to the committed his mental disease record, unlike Sрraggins and had no criminal Harris. against in Christo- mitigating presented the case evidence Thomas(2) compelling than the evidence

pher was also more during psychiatrist in A testified presented Harris’ case. schizophrenia phase paranoid from penalty that Thomas suffered personality, in fits which manifests itself of and an anti-social A auditory visual hallucinations. second violence and causes diagnosis. defense witness corroborated Thomas was admit- psychiatric ted a hospital attempt year as a result of a suicide a murdering before his victim. He history also suffered from a of case, drug jury by finding alcohol abuse. The in Thomas’ c(5)(a) mitigating applied, reasonably may factor have concluded that Thomas’ mental disease or defect contributed to Thomas’ criminal impose behavior and for that reason determined to a life sentence.

Defendant relies on the case of Chippero defendant Richard for purposes proportionality Chippero review. Harris and both during However, were abused their childhood. the abuse endured by Chippero Chippero’s seems to have been more severe. Two of step-parents imprisoned abusing Harris, were him. Unlike diagnosed Chippero specific age mental disease. At seven, diagnosed hyperkinetic, emotionally he was as disturbed mentally retarded. Later he was determined to suffer from bipolar year graduated A disorder. after he from a school for mentally students, Chippero psychiat disturbed was admitted to hospital. ric separate He was institutionalized on four occasions. jury Chippero Chippero’s mitigated in found that mental state culpability committing They his in crime. both concluded that c(5)(a) c(5)(d) contrast, applied mitigating In factors. jury Harris’ aggravating case found that his factors out weighed mitigating Chippe his evidence. We that on appeal note ro’s conviction been set has aside and a new trial ordered because illegal interrogation. Chippero, arrest and State v. 164 N.J. (2000). 342, retrial, 753 A.2d 701 On his confession must be suppressed due to the “unbroken causal connection between his arrest Id. and confession.” 753A.2d 701. history

Defendant Gerald Williams also suffered from a depression finding mitigating that resulted factor c(5)(d) addition, applied. In Williams also that he indicated had daily years. combination, abused cocaine In and alcohol for fifteen jury’s influenced the readily those factors inferable it is forego capital sentence. to determination (5) presented evidence category of the defendants Several capacity finding of diminished support severe intoxication juries in the crime, may have deterred which time of the example One is imposing a death sentence. from those matters c(5)(d) ap- jury mitigating factor Cunningham. The found that extremely when he Cunningham intoxicated plied because drinking history of he had a excessive victim and killed his hours, early morning drinking in the drug abuse. He started sexually assault her. She home and tried to went to his ex-wife’s Then, Cunningham picked up more safety. managed to to retreat alcohol, alcohol. His victim and drank the additional got on a bus him, may bus, have him on the disembarked talked to аgreed relations. to have sexual factor, c(4)(g) (contempora- jury only aggravating found one (extreme c(5)(a) mitigating felony), factors: but found four neous c(5)(d) c(5)(c) defendant), disturbance), (age of mental emotional c(5)(h) (diminished to (any factor relevant capacity) other ease). outweigh the one mitigating were found to Those factors eighty years, Cunningham was sentenced aggravating factor. ineligibility. thirty-year period parole with a kill his when he decided to also was intoxicated Dickerson committing crime Immediately before Dickerson victim. Expert testimony presented indi- freebasing cocaine. experienced paranoia hallucina- bouts of that defendant cated he had a cocaine delusional abusing cocaine and that tions when mitigating factor jury in found Dickerson’s case disorder. c(5)(a) (emotional disturbance), c(5)(d) applied, as well as factor, c(5)(h), mitigat- and that those c(5)(c)(age) and catch-all found, c(4)(g) aggravating factor ing outweighed the one factors felony). (contemporaneous against presented in of intoxication the case defendant

Evidence mitigating jury finding contributed to Scott Johnson c(5)(d) many experts of the that testified applied. factor One support presentation mitigating defendant’s of factors indicated night that Johnson’s behavior on of the the murder was consistent crack, person high specific with the actions of showing signs a on signs early of intoxication as of well cocaine withdrawal. presentation made mitigating Johnson an extensive on factors. the Several of factors under mitigating the omnibus catch-all c(5)(h) factor of presented were found. Johnson evidence of horrible Testimony put abuse he endured while a child. although chronologically twenty-three years forward that age, of age IQ. his mental was much less and he had a borderline Johnson, recalled, it will three-year-old be released the victim’s daughter premises day unharmed on the of a care center. The jury plead also viewed a letter wherein guilty Johnson offered to crime, responsibility and to for take the and he to testified his remorse the for offense.

On their review of against Johnson’s horrific crime balanced carefully thoroughly presentation mitigating marshaled of evidence, jury agree the could not on imposition of the death penalty. many respects very In so Johnson’s similar case is to jury that of Harris. But agree the fact that not in could Johnson, Harris, sentence, yet agree impose could a death does not render disproportionate. Harris’ sentence We note specifically contemporaneous capacity diminished of Johnson notably at the of missing time his offense —a fact In for Harris. view of the three other cases which a death sentence was (Bey, Zola), imposed jury’s judgment J. Williams culpability imposition Harris’ penalty its of the death him for disproportionate is not rendered life Johnson’s sentence. Seymour

John Reese beat his victim while drunk. Evidence presented at Reese’s trial indicated that was known be an he alcoholic who tended to be abusive His towards women. conduct assessment, night on the murder was consistent with this likely jury’s ‍‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‍finding and therefore most contributed to the c(5)(d) mitigating applied, inability factor on its to decide a thirty-year a him to life with capital penalty. sentenced court parole disqualifier. that he was se- presented Luciana evidence

Defendant Mark jury crime. The found that verely time of his intoxicated c(5)(d) found three mitigating factor. The also applied as age, record prior lack of criminal mitigating factors —his other reach a jury was unable to Again, factor. and the catch-all imposed. penalty, a life sentence on the death so decision he Finally, presented evidence that defendant Gerald Williams years. daily He using fifteen had cocaine and alcohol been diminished history depression. That evidence of also had a jury his to capacity apparently influenced and mental disorder noncapitally. sentence (5) recurring category the in illustrates

Our review of cases presented in cases that indicated the themes. Evidence was those severely diminished intoxicated or had defendants either were abuse, suffering capacity drug or from a mental to were due some, murdering victims. In evi- disease or defect when their points. nature presented both Evidence a similar dence was on jury in in case did presented Harris’ case. The Harris’ was not c(5)(a) c(5)(d) mitigating The applied find as factor. not (5) cases, jury’s category in finding mitigating of those factors the abduction, coldly compared to sober and deliberate when Harris’ killing case rape Huggins, differentiates Harris’ and eventual compared to non-aberrational when and makes his death sentence (5). simply category in Harris is more the above-mentioned cases deathworthy defendants. than those (5) category

Finally, the cases we conclude our discussion of during focusing parties agreed to use on three cases cases, Marrero, three Prater and proportionality review. Those However, Rivera, neatly previous not into the discussion. do fit cases, is comparing to Harris’s still when Harris those sentence demonstrably not aberrational. jury imposed a life sentence for defendant Adam Marrero. Harris, relatively young

Unlike Marrero was when he committed murder, twenty-three years agreed old. Marrero and victim his struggle Marrero, have sex. A point ensued at some possibly accidentally, strangled his victim in the midst of this violent sexual episode. The cold and deliberate actions of Harris stand crime, leading marked contrast to Marrero’s us to conclude that Marrero’s life sentence not penalty does render death Harris’ disproportionate. also displayed We note that Marrero more redeeming Among things, characteristics than Harris. other he employed had been on a more consistent basis. prostitute Anthony victim defendant Michael Prater’s

ease, before, initially agreed as noted have sexual relations with co-conspirator, Prater so a kidnapping or other form of forced abduction did not initiate the defendant’s contact with his contrast, In Huggins willing victim. stark participant was not a any stage case, rejected of the In jury crime. Prater’s two of offered, aggravating finding three mitigating factors while e(5)(h). jury factor Thus weigh aggravating had to one factor against mitigating jury apparently one factor. The was reluctant impose penalty the death beyond where there is need to find aggravating outweigh reasonable doubt that the factors miti- gating contrast, trial, In penalty phase factors. in the of Harris’ found that aggravating the State’s two applied factors outweighed single mitigating defendant’s factor.

Finally, we note that of presented evidence intoxication was in brought against the case Shortly defendant Rafael Rivera. before robbing elderly neighbor, an visibly Rivera been had seen intoxi- cated. It during penalty phase was revealed the of his trial that history cocaine, abusing marijuana he had a of and alcohol. The jury apparently capacity believed that evidence of diminished c(5)(d) c(5)(h). mitigating because factor was found as was factor As with of category, several the other cases within this agree penalty; was unable to on the death a hence life sentence penalty imposed was the the court. Precedent-Seeking Review Conclusion

3. that Harris’ sen- precedent-seeking review does not show Our frequency analysis review our disproportionate. As tence is demonstrated, as more death- murders are treated sexual assault They death-eligible categories. worthy of the other than most higher a rate than the overall proceed penalty phase penalty imposed is average death-eligible and the death for cases death-eligible cases. higher than the full universe at a rate statistically for Harris’ case to be not aberrational It was capitally imposed. to be prosecuted or for the death sentence review, And, factually precedent-seeking in both examined when universe clearly justifiable. Unlike cases in his are decisions forego capital prosecution, prosecutor determined where posed prosecution. For impediments no to such Harris’ case reasons, comparable to those three case is more similar Harris’ penalty imposed was than to those cases in the death cases which imposed. in which a life sentence was prove any capacity or extreme failed to diminished Harris crime. affecting him at the time of his He mental condition carjack- aspects thoughtful, in all deliberate and unhurried terrorization, rape shooting during two Huggins ing, substantially That was dissimilar of her ordeal with him. hours (sexual assault) category many D in the where from the cases of a violent sexual encoun- homicide was committed the course premeditated victim. This was a ter between the defendant and homicide, remorse, carefully no nev- executed. Defendant offered responsibility Harris’ case is taking for his offense. Because er comparable cases in his universe which more to the three may distinguished penalty imposed, be from the death examined, have death sentence cannot be viewed we Harris’ others singled unjustly capital He out aberrational. was not is punishment. Harris has not demonstrated his sentence disproportionate.

343 III. OTHER ARGUMENTS Alleged A. Impermissible Publicity Pretrial Influence of publicity Defendant claims that trial prose associated with his penalty phase cution and impermissible trial caused an influence on the in right and resulted a violation his of to a fair trial. Those arguments comprehensively rejected were addressed and in Harris, appeal 133, of supra, his conviction. at 156 N.J. 141— A .2d 458. We see no to basis revisit those issues because they disposed fully Moreover, fairly. have been and our frequency analysis precedent-seeking review have reinforced by demonstrating that conclusion nonaberrational nature prosecutor’s proceed penalty decision to to the phase of this capital jury’s impose ease and the decision to the death sentence. Alleged Systemic

B. Disproportionality independent Defendant an argument plays makes race that significant capital system role in sentencing generally, particular. Consequently, affected sentence he contends that right equal his death protection sentence violates his of the subjected laws and has him punishment to cruel and unusual under Specifically, the state and federal constitutions. defendant prosecutors likely asserts that penalty are more seek the death juries likely are more to return a death verdict if the is victim white. He that risk contends was exacerbated this case due to alleged inadequacy the combination of the of the trial during jury selection, testimony court’s voir dire and the of co- Dunn, who, trial, defendant Gloria for the first time at testified Huggins that'Harris killed because she was white. regarding

As to latter two assertions dire voir and the testimony, Dunn again already we note this Court has disposed reviewed and regarding defendant’s contentions those Harris, appeal issues in the supra, of Harris’ conviction. 156 N.J. 161-68, 182-83, Again, 716 A.2d 458. we see no basis revisit previous rulings fully fairly those issues because the Court’s disposed previous rulings, of them. In view of those defendant’s racial discrimination arguments do not demonstrate that

revived al- Accordingly, we turn defendant’s his case. contaminated application in the of the death leged systemic disproportionality penalty. systemic concerning allegations of a sentiment Court’s Penalty of the Act was on the Death

racial effect administration in II: expressed Marshall the of of that discriminates on basis race the

A statute systemically death-penalty of a victim or raes of the defendant menaces the institutions and foundation free democratic State. omitted).] (quotations N.J. at [ 130 209, 613 A.2d 1059 Thus, disproportionality has claims of racial the Court examined require overturning of proof that would the of discrimination 213, Id. at 613A.2d 1059. death sentence. analysis comprehensive is revealed

Our most recent (II), Project Proportionality in In re Review Court’s decision (II) (2000) ), 206, (Proportionality Review also N.J. 757 A.2d 168 today. Judge In that decision we reviewed Baime’s decided report that reliable statistical evidence of race that concluded no produced. penalty has application effect in the of the death been no that of the influences We find reliable statistical evidence race defendant stage larger death-eligible sentencing trial or in the death either at the penalty that the of сases. Nor does the statistical evidence thesis race sample support progress Further, of the affects which cases trial. defendant penalty suggests that the race of the victim not affect death statistical evidence does sentencing of white victims are no more to receive the death likely rates —killers monitoring than victims. of our Finally killers non-white penalty application indicating no the race of the discloses consistent statistical evidence system progress victim to a trial. However, affects which eases some penalty conflicting, in that and the issue should be revisited when the evidence is respect database increases.

[Baime II, 66.] at Report supra, Judge Propor We concurred with Baime’s conclusion. (II), supra, 757 A.2d tionality Review 165 N.J. 168. No any methodology currently in risk of statistical use demonstrates application penalty. racial discrimination the death Ibid. Thus, controlling reject That here. we defen- determination is argument impermissibly dant’s that racial bias or discrimination Jersey’s sentencing system. affects New death

IV Based on our determination defendant Harris’ death sen- is not disproportionate, tence we affirm the sentence of death.

Appendix A1 I. Agreed Upon Cases Bey

A. State v. Marko April 26, Neptune High On Carol Peniston left School p.m. attending computer around 9:20 after a at course the school. report day She not return home did nor to work the next because Bey apartment Marko her in front building.2 accosted of her He give money, that him demanded she but once he heard someone nearby coming, he led her into a shed and killed her.

Bey Peniston, killing admitted why Ms. but did not know he acknowledged happened. did it and it not that should have He murder, stated that four-and-one-half hours before the he had liquor, straight consumed 120 ounces of malt some rum and marijuana. Bey police smoked considerable amount of informed that he became scared he when noticed the victim looked him through pocketbook. while he her rifled He stated that once face, her, I hitting Ms. Peniston saw his “that’s it when started just far, something too went that shouldn’t have on.” went Peniston, her,

Bey repeatedly struck sexually Ms. assaulted eight keys pocketbook, took dollars and her car from her left and 1 An asterisk after name the case indicates that of the defendant was assigned group Otherwise, to the D-2 of cases. the cases discussed in this assigned group were to the D-l of cases. appendix rights Defendant waived his Miranda statement to the provided police regarding the sexual Ms. assault murder of Peniston. robbery, car, way he collided to Newark her

her on his to die. While on the fingerprints were found iron Defendant’s with an fence. car. of abandoned rear-view mirror 3,May until 1983. Her body was not found Peniston’s Ms. building old industrial by someone near an pocketbook was found thereafter, body Shortly police her Asbury discovered Park. autopsy that she building. An disclosed in a located near the shed days body was found. The before her had dead for several been beaten, sexually that she had been further disclosed autopsy assaulted, examiner concluded that strangled. The medical stomped had on her chest because the Ms. assailant Peniston’s imprint chest. Her ribs of his sneaker on her assailant left an hemorrhaging of of her and there was evidence were fractured column, right atrium of the heart. It right lung, vertebral however, death, was that the ultimate cause determined police investigation Subsequent revealed ligature strangulation. spermatozoa on victim’s coat were found characteristics saliva, imprint and that with those of defendant’s consistent impression on was similar to the left defendant’s sneakers victim’s chest. murder, murder, aggra- felony kidnaping,

Bey charged with assault, assault, robbery, and theft. The aggravated sexual vated suffering, alleged extreme and aggravating two factors: State felony. awaiting during the of a While trial for Ms. murder course murder, Bey guilty of murder was found and sexual Peniston’s proceeding. That murder had assault in an unrelated criminal the murder Ms. Peniston. He was been committed before murder. to for the unrelated sentenced death Bey knowingly purposely juryA for convicted defendant jury murdering Peniston. The also convicted defendant of Carol murder, first-degree kidnaping, second-degree aggravated felony assault, assault, first-degree aggravated first-degree sexual rob- bery, third-degree theft.

347 c(4)(c) (ex- aggravating The State filed notice of two factors: suffering) (during felony), (4)(g) treme e the course of a phase, on the at guilt relied evidence adduced in addition to photographs. several presented testimony

The defendant his aunt and mother and expert Applied an from the Center of Social Research at North- University. testimony eastern His mother and aunt’s was summa- by the rized Court as follows: stating

Defendant’s aunt testified about and childhood, defendant’s parents illegitimate rejected defendant was an child whose father him and whose mother, According sister witness, of the an alcoholic became and abused defendant. to began aunt, his old, when defendant was fourteen he to drink years alcoholic beverages drugs. marijuana, and use He overdosed on alcohol and and was twice. Defendant’s mother her confirmed sister’s hospitalized testimony the blame for her son’s on Defendant on conduct herself. testified his own placed apologized behalf, Ms. I Pemstcm’s and stated that if never family, would “maybe drugs taken have it would never have happened.” [ 112 887]. A.2d 147, N.J. 548 jury proved aggravating found that the State factors and prove any mitigating that the failed defendant factors (extreme e(5)(a) disturbance), asserted: mental or emotional c(5)(d) c(5)(c) intoxication), c(5)(h) (impairment by (age) and (catch-all). jury upheld sentenced him death. This Court

convictions, Bey, but reversed the death sentence. State v. 112 123, (1988). category A.2d not in Although N.J. 548 887 this Bey’s comparison purposes, penalty in a retrial resulted sentencing him verdict to death second time for the murder of capital Peniston Ms. and this Court affirmed that sentence. State 557, (1992), denied, Bey, v. 129 A.2d 814 cert. N.J. 610 513 U.S. (1995). 1164, 1131, Thereafter, Bey’s 115 S.Ct. 130 L.Ed.2d 1093 Bey, death held sentence was not aberrational. State v. 137 N.J. denied, 1164, (1994), 645 A.2d 685 cert. U.S. 115 S.Ct. (1995). 1131, 130 L.Ed.2d Cunningham

B. v. Bruce State 3, 1983, Cunningham thirty-four-year-old Bruce February On morning. in the At 1:00 that drinking heavily at 9:15 began afternoon, Cunningham house found his went to his ex-wife’s and left with man. man in her bedroom another ex-wife ex-wife, into Cunningham rape his but his son walked tried to stop. left the causing Cunningham to As his ex-wife and son roоm followed, point Cunningham one go police, to at house knapsack. he a knife in his mentioning that had home, carrying return a new Cunningham boarded a bus to He on and was supply of rum and met a woman the bus beer. stop. According to Cun- seen that woman at his bus later with sex, but an ningham, they place to find a secluded have decided they having were sex. The State argument out while broke walk, Cunningham kidnaped during their contended that woman, area, head her a deserted struck her forced Afterward, rock, abdomen, raped her in the her. a stabbed body nearby Cunningham a the woman’s and went to buried Cunningham’s tavern noticed hands tavern. at the Someone were covered blood. reported missing. day, her

The next the victim’s mother Police area, body in an with leaves. victim’s secluded covered found the suspect by who was identified as a a witness saw Defendant Cunningham bite marks on the walking with victim and from Cunningham’s impressions. molar victim’s breast that matched murder, felony knowing mur- purposeful He was or convicted der, aggravated kidnaping, aggravated sexual assault and assault. Cunningham psychiatrist penalty phase,

At the a testified that result suffering from a mental disease defect presented paranoid personality disorder. Evidence was Cun- dropped He ningham an childhood. out of suffered from abusive age history drinking high and had a of excessive school sixteen Navy Although Cunningham drug entered the abuse. GED, years prior to had two the offense he not obtained a employed. Cunningham’s prior been criminal record consisted of offenses, disorderly persons aggravated burglaries, two assault offense, battery. Cunningham of living At the time was his wife and with four children. argued following aggravating

The State applied: factors (extreme c(4)(c) c(4)(f) detection) suffering), (escape c(4)(g) (contemporaneous felony). jury only c(4)(g) The that the found applied. jury mitigating presented by found all factors (extreme c(5)(a) applied: defendant mental or emotional distur- bance), e(5)(d) (diminished c(5)(h) c(5)(c)(age), capacity), and (catch-all). aggravating found factors did not outweigh mitigating Cunningham subsequently factors. aggregate years fifty-five-year sentenced to an term of 130 awith parole disqualifier. (2) State v.

C. Jerome Dennis 12, 1992, or January thirty-year-old about a On woman was walking Dennis, twenty-five-year-old down a street when Jerome a male, by knifepoint stairway. followed her her down a and forced undress, up strings He made her tied her with shoe and had vaginal sex with He then in her. stabbed her ten times the neck hill, pushed body body her down a her where found approximately legs together four months later. Her were tied Approximately a blue prior with knotted material. month victim, murdering raped this Dennis and murdered a fourteen- year-old girl Appendix as described later this A as State v. (1). only recently paroled had Jerome Dennis He been from Supervision Program. Yardville and into the admitted Intensive convictions, prior including Dennis had numerous three adult assault, convictions sexual two for criminal restraint and a robbery prior past He did not school conviction. attend grade any drugs. seventh and he use of denies alcohol offense, charged eventually Dennis was with murder for but this guilty pled felony murder and received a life sentence with a charged with an disqualifier He was also

thirty-year parole term. during a four-month that he committed four homicides additional totalled, charged five of counts period. All Dennis was murder, aggravated murder, felony counts of three counts of two assault, possession weapon, of a eight counts of unlawful sexual possession weapon, aggravated counts of eight three counts assault, attempted aggravated kidnaping, one count of two counts assault, theft. burglary and one count of sexual one count pled guilty to the murder he committed described Dennis (one (1), felony of which is the three of murder Dennis counts (2)), manslaugh- of herein as Dennis one count murder described aggravated ter two counts of assault. and (2), he a charge For murder received life sentence Dennis thirty-years. For three parole ineligibility with term of a murder, felony a total three life sentences he received of counts of ineligibility. thirty-year parole For include terms of count, ten-year parole manslaughter he sentence with a received five-years. aggravated assault ineligibility term of For both terms, charges, ten-year two with each he sentenced to five-year ineligibility. carrying parole term of Each sentence sum, In four life concurrently. runs Dennis sentenced to sentences, thirty years an for the remain- as well as to additional ing counts.

D. v. Keith Dickerson State free-basing spent evening

Twenty-year-old Keith Dickerson an home, neighbor’s walked home cocaine. As he returned he front He entered her through and entered an unlocked door. undressed, partially preparing for bed. She as she was bedroom yelled punched him. in the face and beat and cursed at He her unconscious, vaginal with After- her then he had intercourse her. throat, stomach, ward, repeatedly stabbed in the slit her he her her, strangled clothing. her After he killed Dickerson ultimately thirty stole from her wallet. He confessed. dollars prior Dickerson had aggravated convictions for assault and weapons possession, prior parole as well as a violation. He also long history drug had a high abuse and was often on crack cocaine in preceding the six months Expert the murder. testimo- ny underlying verified that Dickerson had impulses, violent changed markedly his behavior began abusing when he cocaine, including paranoia bouts of and hallucinations that exacer- underlying impulses. bated his violent jury murder, murder, A him capital felony convicted aggra- assault, vated robbery, burglary. jury sexual found the c(4)(g) factor, (contemporaneous felony) aggravating rejected but c(4)(f) detection) c(5)(a) (escape jury factor. The found the (extreme (diminished disturbance), c(5)(d) c(5)(e)(age), emotional c(5)(h) (catch-all) capacity), mitigating factors. The mitigating outweighed determined that the aggravating factors imposed thirty-year factors. The court a life sentence with a parole disqualifier capital charge. on the murder Dickerson’s aggregate imprisonment sentence plus forty-five years, was life fifty-two-and-one-half and a term of years parole ineligibility. Eugene State v. E. Edwards July 1987, Eugene

On raped, Edwards and Michael Prater robbed, twenty-three-year-old and a prostitute. killed Earlier evening, luring the two men succeeded in the victim into by promising Edwards’s drugs house a trade оf for sex. Once inside, Prater knifepoint. forced the woman to undress at Prater raped head, holding the woman while a knife to her then after urging hurry, raping Prater to Edwards took his turn her. Ed- up gone, wards left to clean and while he was Prater stabbed the die, woman. strangled Because the woman did not Edwards her her, attempted with a belt and to suffocate while Prater stabbed her pulse yet three or four more times. The stopped, woman’s Prater hit her over the head with tin cutters to ensure she was Afterward, upstairs dead. asleep. the men went and fell day, purse the and watch. He

The next Edwards took victim’s purse bridge, threw onto a her off a and the knife church threw evening, put body the victim’s next door. In the Edwards roof body in along an outside of his home. The was found the wall day. following the morning and Edwards was arrested Edwards confessed, eventually implicating each the other and Prater crime. murder, murder, felony robbery, charged

Edwards was with assault, aggravated possession weapon for sexual of an knowing murder, purpose. pled purposeful unlawful He or aggravated robbery and a life term assault. Edwards received thirty-year count, parole ineligibility the murder term of for ten-year twenty-years robbery term for with a a concurrent twenty years parole ineligibility, and a term of consecutive term parole aggravated ineligibility for the assault with a term sexual years. felony charge remaining aggra- ten murder and two charges vated assault were dismissed. prob- prior history

Edwards had no record and no of mental following present: c(4)(g) lems. The AOC coded the factors as c(5)(d) (mental factor, (contemporaneous felony) aggravating c(5)(f) intoxication), (no significant or defect disease criminal c(5)(h) (catch-all) history), mitigating factors.

P. v. State Scott Johnson 3, 1992, twenty-three-year-old

On November Scott Johnson saw parking County of the Gail Shollar lot Middlesex Mall. her, Although three-year-old daughter the victim’s was with John- knife, approached folding grabbed son with a her victim for hair and forced her to drive around two hours. Johnson then property day the daughter abandoned on the of a care center that day proceeded rape had closed and rob his adult him, prevent identifying victim. In order her from he stabbed thirty dumped body drainage her her in a over times and ditch. daughter morning grounds was discovered the next on the center, cold, day police of the care wet and in shock. She told grabbed got man with a knife her mother the shirt into crying their van. also said that her mother She and seemed interviewed, girl being police seared. While the officers found nearby. keys ignition, victim’s van were Mrs. floor, Shollar’s driver’s license was on the and there were blood- morning, stains on the door and inside the van. The next her body drainage was found in the ditch near Johnson’s former girlfriend’s forty house. She had been stabbed over times in her chest, forearm, autopsy An neck and face. revealed that she died hemorrhagic organs from shock and severe trauma to the vital stabbing. vaginal presence A from the smear revealed the sperm.

Witnesses, offense, with whom Johnson had discussed the in- police palm formed the about Johnson and he was arrested. His prints matched those found on the victim’s van. Johnson de- carjacking police scribed thе and murder detail to the but raping get denied Mrs. Shollar. He said that the victim tried to her, away, caught repeatedly so he chased her. When he he identify stabbed and killed her because she could him. weapon

Police found the murder where Johnson said it was offense, day located. that on Johnson said of the he had cocaine, eighteen marijuana, bag smoked vials of half of a heroin, liquor. snorted and drank six miniature bottles of His girlfriend former he had said that one beer and a hit of cocaine night. murder, charged purposeful knowing Johnson was four murder, felony kidnaping, counts of two counts of two counts of robbery, burglary, aggravated and one count each of sexual as- sault, possession weapon, possession weapon unlawful of a of a purpose. charges, for an unlawful A convicted Johnson of all sought penalty aggravating and the the death State based on (concurrent detection) c(4)(f) c(4)(g) felony). (escape and factors robbery. previous He had one conviction for presented his penalty phase, At the Johnson evidence about father, childhood, hospital- physical troubled severe abuse his seizures, problems associat- pneumonia ization for and behavioral use, delusions, intelligence, neurological prob- drug ed with low lems, capacity during and diminished the offense. DYFS became family he was of his involved with when five because Johnson’s corporal punishment to send mother’s use of and failure excessive age children was fifteen her to school. Johnson evaluated It disruptive poor behavior and academic achievement. because abused, reported DYFS that had been burned Johnson cigarettes, hung by Further rope. and his neck with a investigation IQ in the that his determined borderline/educa- range. diagnosed having a and a ble He was conduct disorder disorder, development having soeialized-aggressive as well as personality.

A this abuse psychologist clinical testified that resulted brain impairment, that Johnson from disorder of and suffered delusional persecutory type, paranoid personality disorder with antisocial traits, disorder, passive/aggressive explosive and and intermittent suddenly aggressive, which him to caused lose'control become psychologist and then blackout about what had occurred. The history also abuse stretched testified Johnson’s substance alcohol, crack, marijuana, age back to five and and included description night that the heroin. He indicated of Johnson on the crack, person high of the was consistent with a and murder on signs early that his intoxication cocaine behavior showed and Looking inadequacy, withdrawal. also at Johnson’s intellectual intoxication, neurological dysfunction, in- alcohol cocaine residual disturbances, psychologist toxication testified and emotional severely cognitive impaired judgment that these factors controls, possibly behavior emotional disturbances and resulted major depression, “severely ability diminished” Johnson’s knowingly carry purposely or the murder sexual assault. out opined longer voluntary He also that Johnson’s behavior was no daughter after he released the from the van. neuropsychology expert capacity

A corroborated the diminished intoxication, theory by explaining damage, how defendant’s brain psychological prevented him cocaine withdrawal and severe stress knowing doing from what he was when he murdered Mrs. Shollar. neuropsychologist also testified that Johnson suffered from disorder, disorder, organic personality dys- dissociative brain function. expert

A in rebuttal that State testified he found no evidence organic syndrome damage, brain or brain and that based on the evidence, knowingly purposely throughout defendant acted step each of the offense. during penalty phase, expressed

Also Johnson his remorse committing daughter the crimes. His her love testified about for her father. aggravating by found all of the factors submitted c(5)(d) (diminished e(5)(h) (catch-all) capacity) and the

State mitigating by jury rejected the factors submitted Johnson. The e(5)(e)(age) mitigating agree capital factor. It was unable to aon sentence.

Accordingly, imprisonment the court sentenced Johnson to life thirty-year parole ineligibility period with a for the murder. An aggregate plus seventy years sixty-five years sentence of life with ineligibility imposed. parole * Marrero G. State v. Adam 26, 1998, twenty-three-year-old August Adam Marrero ac-

On victim, companied uncle to a friend’s house where he met his his thirty-four-year-old woman. Marrero left with his victim p.m., they restaurant around 11:30 were later seen at local bartender, drinking dancing. According to a the two left together at about 1:30 a.m. missing. Police reported her day, the victim’s sister The next took, directly Marrero, victim that he who said

interviewed being After confronted the bar alone. and went to home eventually he story, admitted that in defendant inconsistencies until 7:00 a.m. get did not home to the bar and took the victim were bruised and his police that Marrero’s hands noticed They court order to hold cut. obtained a right hand had a small him. body August on 29th a remote was discovered

The victim’s body Her surrounding Park Vineland. area Central wooded nude, Her legs apart and her knees bent. with her was found head, body had as if the been were extended over her arms around the area. Because dragged. clothing was scattered Her decomposed, positively to be body partially she had her It could not be determined through her dental records. identified assaulted, found sexually but seminal fluid she had been whether Marrero, thirty-six percent of clothing matched as well as on her population. the male had confessed to jailhouse police told that Marrero

A informant victim, way having on the having sex with her drinks with the home, slapped him. grabbing the throat after she and then her done, Marrero, he realized what he had According to before breathing. victim wasn’t murder, murder, felony purposeful for

Marrero was indicted assault, first-degree aggravated sexual and first-degree kidnaping, on all second-degree assault. He was later convicted sexual except counts sexual assault. grew up an abusive alcoholic father and was

Marrero with At the time regularly. completed high never school. beaten He offense, had fathered two children. he was not married but arrest, drinking prior he was two to Marrero claimed that tо his week, marijuana eight-packs smoking once or twice three of beer a week, a using once a week. Marrero had worked as a cocaine laborer, worker, security guard. employee, farm carnival diner previous Marrero had been arrested three times for sexual assault threats, assault, and terroristic a second sexual and a third sexual murder, assault and terroristic threats. At the time of the he was awaiting sentencing charges. on those coded the on bail AOC felony) following present: e(4)(g) (contemporaneous factors e(5)(h) (catch-all) mitigating aggravating factor and the factor. counts, purposeful felony murder For the murder Marrero terms, having thirty- was sentenced to two concurrent life each year parole ineligibility. term of He also received a consecutive twenty years imprisonment kidnaping sentence of for and a con- twenty years aggravated current sentence of sexual assault. sentencing, seven-year At Marrero was first sentenced to a term charge imprisonment pled for a sexual assault that he had guilty to earlier. Mincey

H. State v. Samuel 8, 1982, Mincey On November Samuel broke into the home of a woman, seventy-three-year-old severely, raped beat her and stran- gled her. He stole two oriental dolls and a television from his 1988, police home. In recovered one victim’s November investigating burglary. investiga- An oriental dolls while another implicated Mincey in tion the November 1982 murder.

Mincey years was arrested six-and-one-half after the murder murder, knowing felony charged purposeful and was murder, burglar, kidnaping, robbery, the non-murder but by were the statute of limitations. A convicted counts barred Mincey felony of murder and murder. State did not seek penalty, Mincey imprison- death therefore was sentenced to life thirty-year parole disqualifier. suggested It has been ment with Mincey charged capitally the AOC that was not because prosecutor may of limitations have believed the statute would capital prosecution. have worked to bar a successful arrested, Mincey living with wife and four chil- When landscaping He admitted to dren. He owned his own business. marijuana any using and cocaine but denied addiction. Before offense, Mincey forty and had this had been arrested on occasions assault, including battery, ‍‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‍prior convictions for offenses sixteen assault, receiving property burglary, escape, aggravated stolen and auto theft. c(4)(c) (torture present depravity), or

The AOC coded as c(4)(f) detection), (escape c(4)(g) (contemporaneous felony) c(5)(h) (catch-all) aggravating- mitigating and the factors factors. Anthony I. v. Michael Prater State summary The facts of Prater’s offense were detailed the case Eugene Appendix Edwards discussed earlier in this A. We approached prosti- note that it was Prater who the crack-addicted Also, suggest drugs exchange. tute to the sex for it was Prater throughout who was a knife armed with ordeal. When the home, parties entered Edwards’ it was Prater who brandished his clothing. knife and the victim to her forced remove drug prior disorderly persons Prater had a conviction and three home, convictions. He raised in a violent where his father emotionally, sexually physically, and abused Prater’s mother and attempted rape Prater’s sister. Prater had a borderline intelli- level, gence ability judgment, had limited to use and acted impulsively. diagnosed He had been with attention deficit disor- began abusing eleven-years-old der. He alcohol when he was using drugs years started five later. (two murder, jury felony

A capital convicted Prater of murder (three counts), counts), theft, aggravated sexual assault weapons jury c(4)(g) (contemporaneous offense. The found the c(5)(h) (catch-all) felony) aggravating mitigating factor and the c(4)(c) (torture jury rejected factor. depravity) detection) e(4)(f) (escape aggravating factors. The could not aggravating outweighed determine whether the factors the miti- gating imprisonment factors so court sentenced Prater to life thirty-year parole disqualifier with a on the murder count. Pra- twenty years, forty- aggregate plus was life with a ter’s sentence ineligibility. year parole term of Seymour v. Reese

J. State John 8, 1987, building apartment August Reese came home to his On night, evening drinking. At some time that Reese after an ajar. went into the neighbor’s apartment door He noticed his neighbor asleep in her forty-two-year-old apartment and found his bed, placed a over her back and shirt so he tied her hands behind her over the head raped He her and afterward hit her head. returned to his a claw hammer. Reese then seventeen times with sleep. day, next he threw apartment, up, cleaned and went to The away nearby hammer at a farm. Hair, injuries. fingerprint, and DNA from her The victim died of the crime. Reese connected Reese to the scene evidence Subsequently, initially any in the murder. denied involvement confessed, aggressor. claiming that the victim was the Reese murder, felony purposeful knowing juryA convicted Reese of or (two murder, counts), aggravated kidnaping, criminal re- assault (two counts), straint, burglary, aggravated hinder- sexual assault jury guilty him weapons charge. A found ing apprehension, and a charges. on all care phase, parents testified that he took penalty

At the Reese’s a role model for them. Reese also of his brothers and was on the inmate liaison commit- presented evidence that he worked Anonymous prison. attending while had been Alcoholics tee and facility Reese was correction testified that deputy A warden of his convictions, prior but he had been inmate. Reese had no a model assaulting at her home in 1979 for a female co-worker arrested arrest, a full-time drinking. the time of his Reese was while At years. he had worked for five employee at a local farm where toward women an alcoholic who became abusive Reese was intoxicated, of alcohol emphasized he the role he was when ex-girlfriends testified that he had of Reese’s this offense. Some up during intercourse and he abused often wanted to tie them sexually when he was drunk. them on several occasions c(4)(c) jury following aggravating applied: found the factors (torture felony). depravity) c(4)(g) (contemporaneous c(4)(f) detection) jury rejected (escape aggravаting as an following mitigating factor. The also found the factors c(5)(d) (diminished c(5)(h) (catch-all) capacity) applied: miti- gating factors. thirty-year imprisonment sentenced to life with a

Reese was jury parole disqualifier because the could not reach a conclusion as aggravated charge, to the death sentence. For the sexual assault twenty-year ten-year he received a consecutive sentence with a counts, parole ineligibility remaining term. For he received Among concurrent sentences. the concurrent sentences was a twenty-five-year kidnaping, merged sentence for which was Thus, charges. aggregate criminal restraint Reese’s sentence plus twenty years, parole ineligibility forty life with a term of years.

K. State v. Rivera Rafael 16, 1983, July seventy-eight-year-

On Rafael Rivera murdered apartment. old Elizabeth Cornwall her Newark Rivera lived relationship next door to had a Cornwall and close with her. babysat They Cornwall often for Rivera’s children. referred to “grandmother.” Cornwall as their 16th, early evening July In the hours of Rivera went into apartment money Cornwall’s and looked for while Cornwall was Cornwall, visiting girlfriend. walking Rivera’s while with the cane, apartment assistance of her entered her while Rivera was ensued, struggle A many still there. and Rivera struck Cornwall face, forearms, ribs, vagina times in the and He back. tore her Ultimately, by with either his hand or her cane. he killed her suffocating pillow. her with a coming from Cornwall’s suspicious noises heard

Witnesses heard a bed the witnesses July Specifically, apartment on 16th. victim’s area of the coming from the a man’s voice squeaking and bedroom. forearms, face, neck, and Cornwall’s autopsy

An revealed that bruises, by slapping, probably caused covered with mid-back were on the pressure marks There were of blows. punching, or a series right of her face side jaw, and marks on of her left side Hemorrhaging bruising. linear abrasions surrounded indicated her eye, underneath her tongue, her behind found under showed that autopsy also ribs. The had two fractured cheek. She in the vagina was torn sexually Her assaulted. had been Cornwall mem- bruising the mucous bleeding, and there was back the urethra. the area near brane and him arrested killing her. Police eventually confessed to

Rivera murder, felony knowing purposeful charged him with burglary. A murder, robbery, aggravated sexual assault charge. counts, felony murder except for the all him of convicted history had a phase that Rivera penalty revealed at It was drunk cocaine, He was seen marijuana and alcohol. abusing murder, Rivera was At the time of shortly the murder. before children, working and was their three girlfriend and living with his possessing a prior convictions He had a truck loader. steal, receiving property, car, stolen entry with intent to stolen disorderly persons offenses. and eleven weapons possession c(4)(c) applied: following aggravating factors found the felony). The (torture e(4)(g) (contemporaneous depravity) and or (dimin- c(5)(d) applied: factors following mitigating jury found the reject- c(5)(h) (catch-all) It mitigating factors. capacity) ished detection) and the c(4)(f) aggravating factor (escape ed mitigating factor. c(5)(c)(age) verdict, thеreby unanimous to reach an jury was unable to life Rivera court sentenced penalty. The

precluding the death the mur- disqualifier for thirty-year parole with a imprisonment He der. was also sentenced to a consecutive extended term of life imprisonment twenty-five-year period parole ineligibility with a aggravated on the sexual assault count. Rivera was sentenced to twenty years robbery concurrent custodial terms of for the offense years burglary and ten for the offense. *

L. Jerry Spraggins State v. 2, 1983, September Jerry Spraggins sixty-eight-year- On saw a through apartment old woman her in through window. He broke window, put pillow before she could scream he over her her, sexually pocketbook face. He assaulted gold took her and a autopsy chain. An later showed that she had been smothered and strangled Spraggins to death. April Police arrested 1985. He assault, told the authorities about the sexual but said that he did Eventually, not know she Spraggins died. was linked to the murders of two other women in apartment building. the victim’s regard offense, September

With to the Spraggins 2nd murder, charged murder, felony burglary, aggravated sexual assault and theft. aggravating The State served notice of factors c(4)(c) (extreme c(4)(f) detection) suffering), (escape c(4)(g) (contemporaneous felony). juryA Spraggins burgla- convicted assault, ry, aggravated purposeful sexual knowing murder and felony murder.

During penalty phase, Spraggins’s mother testified about good psychiatrist behavior as a child. A Sprag- testified that (an gins voyeurism suffered from uncontrollable need to view women), voyeuristic thoughts that the would diminish with age. There was evidence that professional defendant did not seek help voyeurism embarrassment, for his for fear of but had had counseling past. some mental health in Spraggins high graduate is school and has a son. He was 28 parents and lived with his prior the time of the offense. His record privacy, consists of convictions for larceny, invasion of trespass, criminal criminal sexual exposure. contact and indecent e(4)(f) aggravating (escape jury following factors: The found detection) felony). jury c(4)(g) (contemporaneous The found and intoxication) c(5)(d) (mental or defect or mitigating factors disease c(5)(f) (no history), rejected significant and factors and criminal c(5)(h) (catch-all). charge, Sprag- c(5)(c)(age) and For murder parole thirty-year term of gins was to a life term with a sentenced merged with ineligibility. felony charges murder were twenty- a charges. Spraggins murder also received consecutive term, for ten-year parole ineligibility year sentence with a Finally, burglary aggravated assault conviction. sexual ten-year term. charge, Spraggins to a concurrent was sentenced (2) Christopher Thomas M. v. State thirty-one-year-old days prison, after his release from Seven owner, Christopher shop a tailor and attacked Thomas entered heavy a fifty-six-year-old He her skull with woman. fractured injuries. died from the head thirteen-inch steel wrench she pocketbook rings and stole items from the victim’s Thomas took sexually assault her. fingers. attempted He also from her murder, knowing charged purposeful Thomas with State (two (two counts), counts), attemptеd felony robbery sexu- murder assault, right weapons to. a al offenses. Thomas waived charges. him The court convicted of all trial. Thomas phase, psychiatrist testified that penalty

At the personality, paranoid schizophrenia, has an anti-social suffers from auditory subject and visual hallucina- is to fits violence has diagnosis. A expert corroborated the tions. A second defense Psychi- murder, Thomas admitted to Trenton year this before attempted never knew his Hospital after an suicide. Thomas atric child, father, Thomas an alcoholic. As a Thomas’ mother was history drug and mentally long had a alcohol abused. He abuse, years before the he two for which received treatment murder. prior

Thomas had robbery, assault, convictions aggravated for (four (two larceny convictions), shoplifting convictions), and tam- pering year crime, with an automobile. Over a before this he had elderly murdered an woman. unemployed He had been for seven years prior to the offense. judge

The c(4)(g) trial (contemporaneous found the felony) aggravating applied. factor The found following mitigat- c(5)(a) ing (extreme applied factors as well: emotional distur- c(5)(d) (diminished bance), c(5)(h) (catchall). capacity) and Thom- imprisonment was sentenced to murder, life for the with a thirty-year parole disqualifier term. The court also sentenced Thomas to a twenty-year consecutive ten-year term with a mini- addition, mum robbery. for the In Thomas was sentenced to a ten-year five-year consecutive term with a minimum for the attempted sexual assault. The remaining merged counts were thus, sentencing, aggregate plus thirty years sentence was life forty-five-year parole with a bar.

N. State v. James Williams

Twenty-three-year-old Beverly part-time Mitchell worked as a receptionist at a nursing Trenton home in addition to her full-time position as a teacher at High Trenton reported School. She work at nursing approximately home at p.m. 4:00 on Decem- 30, 1982, ber and was typewriter later seen at her later at 6:05 p.m. A missing nurse noticed her p.m. at 6:45 and walked into an adjoined office that the reception area. As she turned on the light, she noticed Ms. body lying Mitchell’s on the floor. She was dead.

The nurse described gruesome. the scene as The body victim’s lying face down and naked. Her clothes were strewn about the room. There was blood all over the body, room. Under the undergarment, an pieces some jewelry and a steak knife were found covered in blood. thirty-six had been stabbed autopsy that she determined were in her back. There

times, including twenty-one wounds body, bruises, of her in numerous areas and abrasions contusions that examiner concluded medical and her throat was slashed. probably were fatal. victim’s the wounds to the back it was brother, Williams, Floyd accompanied had Williams’ James 30,1982.3 nursing evening of December to the home defendant murder, police had Floyd what days informed after the Two beer Floyd two brothers drank testified happened. killing. spoke prior Williams apartment to the Williams’ James binge. point during drinking their aggressively one acted and money and night going to make specifically spoke of He placed in his boys.” then a knife up white He possibly “beat some serious, accompanied he but Floyd did not believe belt. nursing to the home. Williams home, sitting the victim was nursing the the two entered

When he to see her that wanted receptionist desk. Williams told at the on Mr. Hoffman was located indicated that a Mr. Hoffman. She elevator, Williams Floyd then walked to the but floor. the second a “back receptionist pushed her into approached the and instead door, the shut Floyd Williams closed followed them. room.” first her She to take off clothes. lights and ordered the victim began angry and stopped. Williams became complied, but then hitting her. 5'2", victim, male,

Williams, who stood at a 6'6" forced rape victim. floor, Floyd by and watched Williams while stood and screamed, placed hands over her mouth so Williams She The brought with him. knife he had to cut her with the started her in the back. managed up, but Williams stabbed to stand victim and floor, on knee got defendant down one fell to the As she killing were to the because they a few months The brothers met prior only eighteen time or at the was either seventeen raised foster homes. Floyd both killing; his brother James of the twenty-one. stabbing “started her in the attempted give back.” Williams her, Floyd Floyd out, knife to to stab way but refused. On the pocketbook. Williams took her charged

Williams was knowing murder, purposeful murder, felony armed, robbery armed, while sexual assault while burglary jury while armed. The convicted Williams on all counts. c(4)(c)(in-

The following State relied on the aggravating factors: c(4)(a) tent suffering) to cause (committing during a murder robbery, aggravated assault, sexual burglary). The State also presented photographs body of the testimony victim’s from the medical examiner that demonstrated that the victim remained conscious after the frontal wounds were inflicted and she had lived several minutes after sustaining the fatal back wounds. presented defense following mitigating factors: c(5)(h)(extreme e(5)(d)(mental mental disturbance), or emotional intoxication), (catch- disease c(5)(h) or defect or e(5)(c)(age) and all). found the applied catch-all factor a mitigating factor, but that outweighed by it was the aggravating factors. Williams was sentenced to death. felony The three murder counts merged with charge the murder and he was sentenced to a twenty-year robbery term for the ten-year with a minimum. For aggravated count, the sexual assault twenty Williams received years ten-year with a minimum. ten-year He received a term five-year with a burglary. minimum for the appeal, On Williams’ sentence and conviction were overturned because this Court found that the voir dire questioning of the prospective jurors inadequate, was combined with the decision not to prospective juror cause, dismiss a required a reversal and a Williams, remand of the matter. State v. 393, 113 N.J. 550 A.2d (1988). pled guilty Williams felony to murder being instead of subjected to a new trial. He imprisonment. was sentenced to life v. Zola O. State James 1983, neighbor was worried morning January a the of

On nearby wrong a something that there was because she feared newspa- approximately worth of that a week’s tenant. She noticed seventy-five-year-old Bar- pers piled up door had outside the complex’s superintendent en- apartment bara Berrisford. spread-еagled on apartment and found Mrs. Berrisford the tered bed, wrapped in a .only girdle in a and sheet. her clothed thongs. by leather Her of her bed victim was tied to the corners wounded, her throat and throat, temple nose and left and were were bruised. neck also body the sixty-percent of victim’s

It later was determined scalding. sign of trauma missing skin No due of semen was organs was detected. No evidence victim’s sexual asphyxiation manual stran- body. died from in her She found penetration of sought prove gulation. The sexual State her un- evidence: by emphasizing all the circumstantial victim defen- spread-eagled; and body was discovered bound clothed apparent and pillow her found under underwear was dant’s genital cavity. date of The estimated presence of saliva in her missing January purse The victim’s 13th. death was never recovered. Zola, a mainte- former investigation authorities to James

An led had com- complex. Mrs. Berrisford apartment at nance man eventually He was supervisor about work. plained to Zola’s position. fired from Instead, psychiatrist testify trial. did not

Defendant killing. of the He account psychologist introduced defendant’s drugs and was be the influence alcohol claimed to under police dogs. being by police and He imagining that he was chased complex, apartment refuge in victim’s took the basement not home. while she was broke into Mrs. Berrisford’s later home, grabbed her and asked Zola Mrs. Berrisford arrived When 368 police up

her where the He tied her hit were. and her head to prevent signaling police. her from the thought

Zola then he a fatal To attempt inflicted wound. to her, give revive tried to he her food and drink. He then took her put clothes off and her in scalding the bathtub. He left water period running left to time and check on the door. When returned, panicked by placed he he was her condition and her on the up. go bed to cover her then went sleep. He home charged knowing murder,

Zola purposeful burgla- and ry, aggravated assault, kidnaping robbery. sexual Evidence presented during trial that indicated Zola from came a broken past. home guilty and a troubled Zola was found on all charges. phase, penalty At the following aggrava- the State relied on the ting c(4)(c)(torture c(4)(g) (contemporaneous felony) factors: depravity). aggravating Both apply. factors found to were c(5)(a)(ex- jury mitigating also found two applied: factors disturbance) c(5)(h)(catch-all). treme emotional jury they outweigh aggravating concluded that did not the factors. Zola was sentenced to death.

This Court reversed the death sentence the trial because court failed to aggravating instruct factors must outweigh mitigating beyond factors reasonable doubt. State Zola, 384, 390-91, (1988). v. 112 N.J. remand, A.2d 1022 On pled guilty Zola to murder received a life sentence.

II. Cases Additional Offered Defendant * A. Bolinger State v. Robert approximately

For days prior murdering three twenty- three-year-old victim, Bolinger watched and followed her. On 1983, March he broke apartment into victim’s vacant through burglarize a window to the victim’s “get home and to her.” He soon heard her and attempted return to leave without However, being Bolinger seen. saw victim hе so attacked her. grabbed He her and upper stabbed her chest. He then tied her, sexually her. feet, assaulted gagged and and her hands Afterwards, and left. money from her wallet he took murder. attempted rape and for another

Bolinger was arrested He two other crimes. committing that crime and confessed to He she reminded victim because he killed the psychologist that told a him. physically had abused stepmother who him of his murder, murder, felony ag- capital charged with Bolinger was possession of assault, robbery, burglary, and gravated sexual felony guilty to pleaded purpose. He unlawful weapon for an assault, a term and received sexual aggravated murder and disqualifier. year parole thirty years with a ten (torture c(4)(c) depravity) and present the The coded AOC and the felony) aggravating factors (contemporaneous c(4)(g) the (no c(5)(f) criminal histo- c(5)(d) (diminished significant capacity), (catch-all) c(5)(h) mitigating factors. ry) and the to alcohol who was addicted veteran Bolinger is a Vietnam of the every day. At the time intoxicated drugs and became employed and had been offense, thirty-six-years-old Bolinger was criminal prior no He had a meter reader. weeks as for two record. * Brockington

B. v. Founcill State boy was 11,1991, twelve-year-old May on 6:00 a.m. At around bedroom boy to his mother’s went awakened screams. from the waist Brockington, nude doorway saw from the bed, manner moving in a down, next to the kneeling on the floor his mother boy where activity. The asked with sexual consistent boy sleeping and that was, Brockington said she later, Brockington left and minutes fifteen Ten to should leave. He mother dead. to find his the bedroom boy returned to immediately police. called lying on the victim thirty-four-year-old police found been had jeans and underwear Her blue to the bed.

floor next face, her leg. Blood covered left her lower pulled down around wall, carpet, autopsy and bed sheets. An revealed that she strangled had been to death.

Brockington day. was arrested later that He confessed that he victim, physical had a confrontation with the struck her pointed object, head with a and had sexual contact with her. murder, murder, Brockington charged felony aggravated assault, assault, aggravated possession sexual weapon of a purpose. pled an guilty aggravated manslaughter unlawful He sentence, twenty-five-year and received a eight-year with an term parole ineligibility. present e(4)(g) (contemporaneous The AOC coded as the felony) c(5)(f) (no aggravating significant factor history) and the criminal c(5)(h) (catch-all) and the mitigating Brockington factors. was thirty-three years old at the time of the offense. child,

Although single he fathered one he is and lived with his parents at the high graduate, time the murder. A school Brockington employed arrest, was before prior and had no criminal regular record. He claimed to be a cocaine user for a year up or two to the time of his arrest. Chippero

C. State v. Richard 23, 1991, July twenty-three-year-old On Chippero Richard en- neighbor, thirty-nine-year-old Tocci, tered home of his Ermina refused, and asked her to have sex with him. Tocci Chippero and pulled pocket out a knife and chased her into the bedroom. He forced her to raped knifepoint. undress and her at Fearing that him, identify she Chippero could stabbed Tocci ten times. She died from Chippero subsequently the wounds. discarded the knife. It was never found. partial

A print sneaker was found on the victim’s back. That impression closely impression pair resembled the from a of sneak- Also, Chippero’s ers found in vaginal home. swabs taken from the during victim autopsy provided evidence activity, of sexual although DNA testing conclusively did not tie the sexual assault to had been after he Eventually, Chippero confessed Chippero. custody hours. police for several days after twenty-five only the murder

Chippero committed offenses. other serious prison sentence for being paroled from a assault, aggravat- aggravated previously convicted He had been arson, arson, burglary, and theft. ed abusing him. imprisoned for stepfathers were Chippero’s two His his mother. him and physically abused stepfather His first him. When he sexually abused physically and stepfather second being hyperkinet- diagnosed as Chippero was seven-years-old, graduat- disturbed, mentally After ic, retarded. emotionally students, Chippero emotionally disturbed ing from school He was hospital four occasions. on psychiatric to a admitted behavior. and manic bi-polar affective disorder diagnosed with a murder, murder, felony capital Chippero of jury The convicted assault, prosecution, hindering apprehension aggravated sexual c(4)(f) (escape detec- jury found weapons offense. and a tion) felony) aggravating factors c(4)(g) (contemporaneous disturbance), (extreme c(5)(e)(age), c(o)(a) emotional and the (catch-all) c(5)(h) mitigating e(5)(d) (diminished capacity), factors. mitigating factors aggravating each of found impose the unanimously decide whether not

applied, but could life Chippero was sentenced as a sentence. penalty death on the disqualifier term thirty-year parole imprisonment with life a consecutive him to court sentenced The murder conviction. for the disqualifier term parole twenty-five-year with a sentence hindering Finally, for the assault conviction. aggravated sexual count, a concur- Chippero received prosecution apprehension or merged for were remaining convictions five-year term. rent sentencing. by this Court set aside conviction was appeal, Chippero’s

On illegal arrest. State of an product his confession because (2000). Chippero, v. 164 N.J. 753 A.2d 701 The matter has been for remanded retrial. Clowney

D. State v. Sharob 11, 1991, evening police On the of November discovered the body naked apartment multiple of Barbara Williams in her with wrapped stab wounds and an electrical cord around her neck. sons, five-year-old nine-year-old Seated next to her were her Kyshon Kyshon thirty-seven and Karee. sustained stab wounds face, neck, chest, stomach, back, legs, to his arms and while Karee twenty-five sustained lung. stab wounds to his chest and live, managed children Clowney and later identified as the killer. paramedic

A stabbing estimated that occurred fourteen earlier, hours and that Williams died due to blood loss at least twelve hours earlier. Williams had contusions and hematomas held, being punched consistent lip with or as well as a laceration being punched. Thirty-nine consistent with punc- stab wounds chest, back, lung, tured her diaphragm, and liver. She also had autopsy penetration defensive wounds. An revealed forceful vagina her and anus.

Karee said that through a man came in the window and stabbed him, brother, and his mother. playing He had survived apartment, dead. After the man left the Karee covered his blanket, did, mother with a and as he his mother him told she loved him. day murder, Clowney

On the of the hospital was in the puncture right wounds to his elbow. He told two friends that he children, explained stabbed woman and her two that he was apartment in the exchanging money sex drugs. He said they struggled the woman had the knife and for it. The three apartment body discovered, went to Williams’ before the but entry were refused into building. His friends convinced day, Clowney related his in next and Clowney turn himself story. self-defense Clowney photo subsequently a

Kyshon Karee identified and scene, pair and a at the array. Clowney’s sperm was found A knife found Clowney’s Williams’s blood. trousers contained Williams’s blood. Clowney’s apartment also contained Clowney capitally. A convict- prosecute did not State murder, attempted murder murder, felony two counts of ed him of assault, (two weapons counts), offenses. aggravated sexual thirty-year a imprisonment with him to life The court sentenced Clowney sentenced to murder. was also parole bar for the ineligibility four-year parole nine-year with a sentence concurrent charge. For the first assault aggravated sexual term for murder, twenty Clowney sentenced to attempted was count term, run ineligibility consecutive years ten-year parole with a attempted mur- charge. For the second count to the murder with a der, twenty-year term Clowney sentenced to another was term, to the first to run concurrent ten-year parole ineligibility sentence, the murder well as consecutive to attempted murder merged purposes of sen- were The other convictions count. tencing. e(4)(b) (grave risk of death to present coded as AOC

another) factors felony) aggravating c(4)(g) (contemporaneous c(5)(h) e(5)(d) (diminished capacity), and e(5)(c)(age), and the (catch-all) mitigating factors. years murder, Clowney nineteen old and of the

At the time drugs victim on to the claimed to have sold drug dealer. He adult, prior simple assault he had a As an numerous occasions. began juvenile He record. had an extensive He also conviction. alcohol, eleven, hard age and went on to abuse drinking beer at marijuana, and cocaine. alcoholics, his father abused

Clowney’s parents were both diagnosed attempted suicide and drugs. mother once His His mother depressed mood. adjustment disorder with boyfriend physically emotionally Clowney. her abused She pet in him kill once cooked his hamsters the oven and forced to his Clowney dog. became suicidal like his mother. He made several attempts. suicide He tried cut his wrists when he was twelve. old, eighteen years finger When he was he severed his but refused later, year go hospital. to the to kill One he tried himself drinking jail kill in bleach. Williams also tried to himself after murdering by banging against jail Williams his head walls. cigarettes He also arm with in burned his order to alleviate his anger. diagnosed intermittent-explosive He was with disorder personality with borderline disorder anti-social features. (1) E. v. Dennis State Jerome 1, 1991, raped fourteen-year-old

On December Jerome Dennis a girl knifepoint, girl and then stabbed her to death. The neck, chest, in suffered three stab wounds eleven in the ten in the abdomen. Her ankles and wrists had been bound. Dennis later said that a demon came over him. offense, prior

Less than two weeks to the Dennis had been paroled from Yardville State Prison and admitted into the Inten- Supervision Program. sive prior Probation He had three adult assault, prior convictions for sexual two convictions for criminal robbery. period, restraint and one for In a four-month he com- others, including raping mitted this homicide and four and then stabbing Appendix another victim as in described earlier this (2). State v. Dennis murder, charged pled guilty felony

Dennis was he but murder for the instant offense. He received life sentence with a thirty-year parole disqualifier. offenses, remaining ‍‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‍For the aggregate Appendix sentence is outlined earlier this A as State (2). v. Dennis present c(4)(g) (contemporaneous felony)

The AOC coded as c(5)(h) (catch-all) aggravating mitigating factor and factor. Den- any drugs use of only grade and denied completed the seventh nis or alcohol. Ralph Edwards

F. State v. Edwards, 11, 1984, eighteen-year-old February Ralph an On male, when he noticed walking along the local railroad tracks platform near the tracks. He nine-year-old on the female station. He as she went inside an abandoned followed the victim him on a mattress her to sit with approached the victim and asked to the exposed He himself in the station. which was discarded her on sexually her. As he turned attempted to assault victim and managed to knee rape anally, her the victim her stomach groin run from the station. in the area and Edwards plastic strap that and used a caught up with the victim Edwards more by wrapping it around her neck to restrain her he had found to the yanked strap, the victim fell he than once. When picked lay Edwards motionless. ground and hit her head. She railings. track He to an area between two up her and carried her station, from the mattress retrieved sheet then went back to body. body Her covered the victim’s in the station and he found The of hours later. cause approximately five was discovered strangulation. was death receiving stolen April 1984 for convicted on

Edwards was police officers month later when property. He was arrested one young boy on the railroad sexually assaulting a him observed murder scene. Edwards and a half from the tracks about a mile sexual questioned about the latter murder when confessed to the offense. murder, attempt- felony murder charged with

Edwards was aggravating factors was A notice of aggravated sexual assault. ed c(4)(f) c(4)(c) (extreme (avoiding suffering), provided the State: detection) jury acquitted felony). A c(4)(g) (contemporaneous knowing murder, guilty of found him purposeful but him of n charges. murder and other prior history Edwards had no convictions. Evidence of his psychological problems presented, indicating and mental nine-year-old. he functioned on a level of a mental/emotional c(4)(f) penalty phase, jury At c(4)(g) found factors present. following mitigating were also found the factors c(5)(d)(mental c(5)(f)(criminal disease), applied: c(5)(c)(age), histo- c(5)(h) (catch-all factor). ry) and impris- Edwards received a life sentence, thirty-year period parole ineligibility onment with a felony for charge merged the murder count. The murder with the charge sentencing purposes. murder remaining On the charge, years, five-year Edwards was sentenced to ten with a period parole ineligibility consecutively to be served to the imposed sentence on the murder count. *

G. State v. Otis James 11, 1994, May police responded burglary On report. to a A woman awoke lying to find Otis James on the floor next to her mouth, placed bed. He his hand over her motioned for her to be quiet, began to fondle her. The woman screamed for her daughter, prompting through James to flee a bathroom window. investigating burglary,

While police noticed a window in an upstairs apartment open. police eighty-two-year- found a upstairs apartment old female in the lying on her bed stomach- down, legs spread nude below the waist. Her apart were and a gel spread vaginal had been over her and anal area. A chair had pulled up been to the bed next exposed genitalia. to the woman’s It was determined that sexually the woman had been assaulted by asphyxia and smothering was killed due to compression and police the neck. The lifted fingerprints apart- several from both ments that prints. matched James’ 29, 1995, September

James was arrested on attempted for the yet murder of another woman. He culprit was identified as the May burglary through and fingerprints murder and similari- May ties September between the crimes. murder, charged burglary, felony

James was with two counts of murder, assault, aggravated attempted sexual two counts sexual aggravated pled guilty assault and criminal sexual contact. He felony imprisonment a murder and was sentenced to life with thirty-year parole ineligibility. term of e(4)(f) detection) (escape present

The AOC coded as and the c(4)(g) (contemporaneous felony) aggravating factors and the c(5)(d) (diminished c(5)(h) (catch-all) capacity) mitigating and the factors. high claimed he was drunk and he committed the

James when offense, only money property support intended to steal drug sexually assaulting habit. He claims not to remember eighty-two-year-old noticing woman or that she was dead. Despite participating pro- in several substance abuse treatment grams, daily. apparently he abused alcohol and cocaine James drinking age five. started father,

James never met his and his mother died a car death, when he eleven. After his mother’s James accident siblings and his two were raised different relatives. James dropped high grade. out of school after tenth He carried a truck- certificate, driving unemployed at the time of the offense. but was nineteen, suicide, attempted When he was James and was subse- quently hospitalized diagnosed depression. At the time offense, living twenty-eight-years-old of the and was James prior robbery, burglary, with his sister. He has convictions for theft, arrest, disorderly attempted burglary, resisting conduct and parole shoplifting. He was on when he committed the murder. (2) H. State v. James Koedatich O’Brien, friends, college night

After a out with Deirdre female student, dropped approximately her friends off and drove home at 5,1982. 1:45 a.m. on December a.m., park patrolman approximately

At 2:10 found O’Brien’s headlights car abandoned on the side of the road with its purse was left keys ignition in and a taillights were the on. front of the patrolman a tire track noticed on the seat. residence and found patrolman drove to the victim’s vehicle. The not arrived home. that she had a.m., responded to a call Jersey Troopers

At New State 4:26 nearby stop that a woman had been at a rest from a truck driver A trucker was immediate medical attention. and needed stabbed person sitting in the car that had identify the car and the able to injured stop woman. She screamed at the rest arrived help the ear. The truck driver went to and was able to exit the victim, bleeding chest. Another noticing that she was from the troopers. The victim told made the call to the state truck driver drivers, troopers that arrived on truck as well as the one of the scene, pulled from forced the road and was that she was off her car her assailant. hospital. shortly arriving at the She had died after

O’Brien had been found in four times in the chest and semen been stabbed vagina. her mouth and 1983, p.m. January responded to

At 11:20 on authorities police arrived call for medical assistance. When Koedatieh’s home, leaning against he saw Koedatich the kitchen at Koedatich’s up. tending a his T-shirt rolled His mother was wound table with driving police that he was when a car on his back. Koedatich told light pulled his car over. Koedatich claimed to have with a blue car, inquiries occupant of the gotten responded out of the to the car, car, re-entering he was he was stabbed the other and as car, hospital, taken to the and his which the back. Koedatich was dropped off at the description of the car that O’Brien matched stop, police garage. rest was taken to the stabbing of A Evidence linked Koedatich to the O’Brien. paint particles in Koedatich’s forensic chemist testified that found that, clothing. expert An car were found on the victim’s testified car matched the tire marks the snow tires found on Koedatich’s kidnaping. Another testified found at the scene of witness a that there was correlation between the fibers found on Koeda- Also, clothing. tich’s seat cover and those found on the victim’s it was determined that Koedatich’s stab was self-inflicted. murder, felony charged kidnap-

Defendant was with murder and c(4)(a) ing. aggravating (prior A of notice factors was served: c(4)(c) (extreme c(4)(f) murder), detection), suffering), (escaping c(4)(g) (contemporaneous felony). Defendant found was guilty on all counts. long, history dating

Koedatich had a violent criminal back to his by In childhood. 1971he was convicted of murder a Florida court. approximately He was free for four months when he killed murder, Approximately a O’Brien. week before O’Brien’s he kidnaped eighteen-year-old girl leaving an as she was work. He murder, sexually girl. assaulted and murdered that For that he upheld, was sentenced to death. The conviction was but was Koedatich, sentencing proceeding. remanded for a new State v. (1988). 112 N.J. 548 A .2d939 O’Brien, penalty

At the trial for the of murder his sister-in-law very respectful testified that Koedatich and close with his family. girlfriend favorably disposition. His to also testified his addition, testify witnessing sociologist permitted In a about injection pros a of the death lethal about cons penalty. death c(4)(f) jury c(4)(g) aggravating found that factors c(5)(h) (catch- mitigating

applied. The also found that factor all) applied. thirty-year to life with a Koedatich was sentenced period parole ineligibility on the murder count. He was also thirty years fifteen-year consecutively period a sentenced with parole ineligibility kidnaping for the count. * I. v. Mark Luciana State 27, 1987, nineteen-year-old evening Mark Lucia-

On June party fifteen-year-old na female and three other attended group go swimming nearby left to at a wooded friends. Later fifteen-year-old arrived, walked they Luciana and the area. When sexually and stran- woods, assaulted her where Luciana into the Afterward, rejoined friends and told them Luciana gled her. Eventually, go the bathroom. had left to the victim home, friend remained the friends and one Luciana drove two of passed out. the car scene, put victim’s crime back to the

Luciana then drove trunk, friend a hotel. When Luciana’s body in the and drove to body him the in the morning, Luciana showed the next awoke start, friend Luciana and his Because the car would not trunk. days, Within a few at the hotel and returned home. left it body Luciana turned police about the and Luciana’s friend told himself in. implicated Luciana’s that further

Police received information ex-girlfriend stated that Luciana in the murder. His involvement being drinking and refused sex. Luciana’s violent after became Luciana indicated that he received cellmate also indicated that fifteen-year-old, as well gratification from the murder of sexual during inflicting pain upon partners other sexual encoun- as from ters. murder, knowing felony charged purposeful or

Luciana was murder, assault, hindering apprehension and aggravated sexual aggrava- endangering of a child. The State asserted the welfare (extreme c(4)(f) detection), e(4)(c) suffering), (escape ting factors (concurrent mitigating felony). asserted c(4)(g) and The defense (mental (emotional c(5)(d) c(5)(a) disturbance), c(5)(c)(age), factors c(5)(f) (no intoxication), significant criminal disease or defect or e(5)(h) (catch-all). jury guilty on all history), A found Luciana and counts. presented evidence that penalty phase,

At the the defense high grade, ninth but later dropped Luciana out of school after community college. and attended classes received his GED murder, step-father’s employed in his At time of the he was Luciana had both an paving There was evidence that business. subject drug problem physical alcohol and and was and emo- psychologist suggested tional abuse as a child. A defense very age Luciana was immature for his and had an anti-social personality stemming neglect disorder from as a child. Luciana testified, psychologist, as did the that he was intoxicated from eighteen marijuana killing, although beers and at the time of the testimony. this was not consistent with other witnesses’ Luciana Yet, empathy also stated that he feels little for those around him. tearfully thing he testified that he could undo not the terrible he did, victim, truly that he did not mean to kill the that he was sorry, jury spare prior and asked the his life. Luciana has one drug possession receiving conviction from 1986 for stolen property. 4(f) aggravating found 4(g) mitigating factors 5(f) 5(h). 5(c), 5(d), They

factors were unable to reach a factors, regarding weighing decision of those so Luciana was imprisonment thirty-year sentenced to period parole life with a ineligibility aggregate for the murder. He received an consecutive years imprisonment sentence of remaining nineteen for the charges.

J. State v. Rasheed Muhammad 1, 1995, McClain, April Jakiyah eight-

On the afternoon of an friend, year-old, Maxey, went to visit a Ah-Tavia who lived a few away. Jakiyah walking upstairs blocks As and Ah-Tavia were to apartment, apartment Ah-Tavia’s Muhammad entered the build- ing Jakiyah upstairs. and volunteered to walk Muhammad knew go upstairs, Ah-Tavia’s mother. Ah-Tavia did not but instead Jakiyah’s upstairs. watched as Muhammad took hand and led her thereafter, Shortly kicking banging, Ah-Tavia heard someone Jakiyah’s and she also heard screams. Jakiyah night,

When never home returned her mother her, began searching eventually missing person filed a report. day, police The next discovered that Muhammad was granted stay permission apartment in an abandoned police knocked The Jakiyah last seen alive.

building where them enter. Muhammad let apartment and of that on the door body closet of girl’s in the bedroom little police found the The underpants around position with her in a fetal apartment, curled person last Muhammad as the identified ankle. Ah-Tavia one Jakiyah. seen with sexually assaulting and kidnaping, confessed

Muhammad to be was determined Jakiyah. The cause of death murdering sexually had been autopsy that she An confirmed asphyxiation. assaulted. murder, kidnaping, bur- capital charged with

Muhammad was felony murder. aggravated sexual assault glary, two counts him of the juryA convicted charge dismissed. burglary charges. remaining following alleged that the phase, the

During penalty State c(4)(f) (avoid detection), c(4)(g) present: aggravating factors were (murder and a during of a sexual assault the course committed old). (victim c(4)(k) fourteen-years Mu- was less than kidnaping), (catch-all) c(5)(h) factors separate nineteen alleged hammad concerning his childhood presented present. Evidence was were exposed to neglected by parents, his years during he was which sexually He problems and abused. parents’ drug and alcohol his He was abused stabbing his mother. witnessed his father also also was institutional- paramour. mother’s He parents and his custody began parent take of him. He neither would ized because injuries. several head abusing drugs by age twelve and suffered attempts. of two suicide There was documentation c(4)(k) aggravating factors were c(4)(g) and found the jury could not mitigating factor. The present, as well as each was sentenced unanimously agree punishment. on Muhammad рarole. no He received imprisonment life a term of charge, kidnaping with a fifty-year sentence for the consecutive remaining con- parole ineligibility. The twenty-five-year term of merged. were victions

K. v. B. State Walter Norris 26,1996, apartment

On March an complex security guard called police report lying that he had discovered naked woman ground that, bleeding. discovering on the guard Prior to had kicking noticed a man guard approached, the woman. When the away. the man ran arrived, police they

When found a condom located near the scene of the body, police crime. From marks on her could tell dragged that she had been sexually to the location where she was assaulted and beaten. immediately transported She was to a hospital, hospital but she died multiple injuries at the because of and bruises to her face and head. security guard’s description,

Based on the police arrested Nor- charged aggravated ris. He was with murder and three counts of sexual A aggravated manslaughter assault. convicted him of thirty-year and he years was sentenced to a term with fifteen parole ineligibility. remaining charges The were dismissed for sentencing purposes. years twenty-eight

Norris was old at the time of the offense. security He lived with his mother guard and worked as a deliveryman. history He had a of mental illness and had been institutionalized 1995 for two weeks. present e(4)(g) (contemporaneous felony) AOC coded as c(5)(d) (mental

aggravating factor and the disease or defect or intoxication) c(5)(h) (catch-all) mitigating factors. *

L. State v. Gerald Williams 13, 1994, April On the victim’s mother was notified place employment reported victim’s not she had to work day. daughter’s apartment She went to her and found her lying right on her stomach. She nude and her wrist and left rope. police. ankle were tied with a She called the autopsy strangulation revealed that the victim died from sexually and that she vaginally anally. assaulted both A body used to assault oil were and a bottle white vase small He also thumbprint found on the bottle. was Williams’ victim. a samples taken from semen gene that matched an unusual had of the crime. found at the scene sock male, employed in the had been Williams, thirty-eight-year-old a months. He building approximately four for apartment victim’s apartments began living in vacant February 1994 and fired was complex. in the and stairwells with the victim. He had an affair claimed that he had

Williams He had in the murder. he not involved and that was also asserted history had a robbery assault. He also for prior convictions arrest, have been he claimed to the time of his depression. At years. alcohol for fifteen daily using cocaine and murder, murder, felony burglary, charged with Williams restraint, assault, unlaw- criminal aggravated sexual two counts of weapon for an weapon possession of a possession of a ful by on all counts. convicted a purpose. He unlawful parole for the murder a life with no received sentence Williams fifty-year to a consecutive also was sentenced count. Williams parole ineligibility for the twenty-five-year with a term term merged for remaining convictions were kidnaping charge. The sentencing. purposes of

COLEMAN, J., dissenting. capital and sen set aside the conviction previously

I voted publicity. v. pretrial and mid-trial State death because of tence of (1998). Harris, 122, 211-230, The AOC has N.J. 716 A.2d 458 156 non-aggravated sub-category D-2 for assigned this case to the because, view, not killings in its this case does assault sexual brutality, in the relative context of when viewed contain extreme age of 14 killings. The victim was over other sexual assault contributing no only single fatal wound with and suffered obtaining after injuries except shot that was fired the second category. D-2 De eleven other cases shovel. There are penalty. prosecu- Even only get the death is the one to fendant

385 facts, D-2 deathworthy. tors deem the less Given eases those I holding dissent from the Court’s and conclude that defendant’s by sentence of pretrial death was influenced and mid-trial III, therefore, is, Harvey supra, publicity and aberrational. II, 319, 1121; Cooper supra, N.J. at 159 N.J. 731 A.2d I A.2d 1000. would vacate sentence of death and remand penalty new trial.

LONG, J., dissenting.

I believe that because Ambrose Harris’s death sentence was extensive, impermissibly publicity prior influenced adverse trial, during meaningful proportionality impossi- review is otherwise, majority to ble conduct. Because the I holds dissent. I. coverage

Local news of massive Harris’s case was and intense. victim, coverage began during The the disappearance initial of the 1992, Huggins, trial, Kristin throughout in December lasted the during appeal. newspaper and continued even the local The is colorfully criminals, unsympathetic well known for its of treatment singled inflammatory treatment; it particularly but out Harris for coverage its out-of-proportion coverage of his case was to its of any capital other defendant. Even the trial court stated that publicly Hams despised was “the most criminal this Court recall.” can articles,

In newspaper different the local referred to Harris as a monster, beast, animal, savage.” a a wild and a “useless On 24, 1993, February newspaper’s large picture the cover was of MONSTER,” Harris giant next to the headline: “Profile of type, Huggins in smaller Who Killed “The Man Kristin Committed Rape Teenager.” story His First as a The section front juxtaposed half-page picture large next Harris and the to a caption: Boy Beast.” “From to Another bold headline ran: “I Man,” quoting Don’t Think He’s a the victim’s mother. Another 1993, February mug on large article featured a shot of Harris in a Kill You “Huggins Suspect ‘Would to the headline: next ” Heartbeat.’ disturbing newspaper’s calls for the more is the heated Even respons- without a trial. Editorial immediate execution Harris opinions in a known as “BackTalk” spoken es to readers’ section striking. “Bring Hang- Back the headline particularly are Under public hanging of Harris on Trenton ings,” one reader called for a field, suggested that: can invite High “[W]e School’s football happens people everybody around to see what who from all Why give pay it I’ll people. not a shot? don’t care about other try, I rope!” newspaper’s response was: “Nice but for the buy pay rope. the You can lumber for the first to offer to for though.” newspaper also the gallows, ran headline the type HIM” in inch next to Harris’s “KILL one-and-a-half bold 10,1994, paper. day the picture on cover of the On first June penalty phase, the headline on the deliberations page “Death Harris.”1 editorial ran: trial, During jurors sequestered likely were were not newspaper around the see the local headlines stands located along juror bus The trial court denied courtroom and route. change responded for a of venue and to the Harris’s motion publicity by making inquiries during voir instead limited dire jurors exposed newspaper coverage. had whether been however, court, fully explore not effect of the The trial did publicity jurors inquire on read it. did the trial court the who Nor jurors history, any whether had learned of Harris’s criminal about known, they from which would not have otherwise the about juror publicity. the to The trial court refused to reroute bus avoid stands, newspaper require jury the to exposure to the remain 1 reprints, newspaper coverage full the and see For a account of selected State 212-18, J., 122, 202-10, (Handler, dissenting). 716 v. 156 N.J. A.2d 458 Harris, Feldman, Harris N. Free Press vs. Fair Trial New See also Jersey: Capital (1999) Prejudicial Rutgers 31 Law J. 209 based on Media Appeals Publicity, (discussing publicity adverse claims in State v. Harris and State v. Timmende quas).

387 lunch, jury during sequester jury during room jurors penalty phase, individually and to voir dire the about the publicity penalty inflammatory during phase publicity while about the case continued. court, Division, Appellate agreed that,

The trial and this Court volume, in light intensity, publicity, of the and virulence of the Harris, prejudice. there presumption was a v. 156 State N.J. 122, (1998) (Harris 145, I); Harris, 716 A .2d 458 State v. 282 409, 413-15, N.J.Super. However, (App.Div.1995). 660 539 A.2d ultimately those courts prejudice concluded that no actual resulted publicity from the adequate because the trial court took remedial potential publicity. measures to counteract the effect of the Har I, 146, 153-54, supra, ris N.J. at 716 156 A.2d 458. It is obvious prejudice. to me that Harris suffered publicity actual scathing, jury, likely calculated to influence to have jurors, by reached one or more of the and was not met serious prejudice. Accordingly, efforts to minimize the I must concur that, pervasive pretrial Justice Handler’s conclusion “the publicity prosecution midtrial that surrounded this created real trial,” istic likelihood defendant not would receive a fair that, precautions by “[t]he taken the trial court to overcome that publicity woefully inadequate to were assure a fair trial.” Harris I, 218, (Handler, J., supra, dissenting). 156 N.J. at 716 458 A.2d

II. review, Precedent-seeking significant the most method meas 335, uring proportionality, 253, Loftin, State v. 157 724 N.J. A.2d II), denied, 229, (Loftin 129 cert. 528 U.S. 120 S.Ct. (1999), largely upon mitigat L.Ed.2d is aggravating based ing by jury. penalty phase factors found Because Harris’s penalty phase likely newspa was most influenced the local per’s rely scathing publicity, findings. we on its Without cannot findings concerning aggravating mitigat accurate and reliable circumstances, ing simply it impossible compare is Harris’s case culpability. with other to determine All that cases his relative we 388 review to hope accomplish proportionality in Harris’s is

can abstract, culpability in the without reference his moral assess comparative culpabili standards for other cases our established to “administer most ty. unacceptable That is means an II, penalty in a and consistent manner.” extreme fair Loftin 279, 724 A.2d 129. supra, 157 N.J.

I, therefore, dissent. O’HERN, PORITZ and Justices For Justice affirmance —Chief STEIN and LaVECCHIA —4. vacate remandment —Justices COLEMAN

To and for LONG —2. A.2d PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JERSEY,

STATE NEW v. OF FEASTER, RICHARD DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. ‍‌​‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​‌​​‍2, August Argued March 2000 Decided 2000.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Harris

Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date Published: Aug 2, 2000

Citation: 757 A.2d 221

Court Abbreviation: N.J.