State v. SloaneState v. Sloane
I.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the jury should have been charged with respect to the lesser offenses of purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon,
The Statе‘s case was developed through the victim, Clyde Jones, and a friend, Judge Pickett. They testified that an argument developed between Jones and defendant having
The defendant testified that he was attacked by Jones with a tire iron and that defendant acted in self-defense. His position was outlined by defense counsel in summation:
Now, let‘s look at Tony Sloane‘s side of the story. Tony Sloane testified that on June 17th, 1982 he was in the area of Perry Streеt by the Freeway Steakhouse. He‘s met by Clyde Jones. They‘re joking. Tony Sloane testified that Clyde Jones was very intoxicated. Clyde Jones asks Tony Sloane for a joint. Tony Sloane says: I don‘t have a joint. Clyde Jones asks for money. Clyde Jones demands money. He becomes belligerent, breaks two quart size beer bottles, threatens Tony Sloane with them, has him against the wall. When Clyde Jоnes‘s attention is momentarily diverted, Tony Sloane manages to escape, seeks refuge. He encounters Henry.
You heard the State‘s witnesses and Tony Sloane testify as to Henry. Hеnry informs Tony Sloane: Look, Clyde Jones is acting weird. Don‘t worry. Let‘s go home. Let‘s get out of here. They have to go back to the same area in order to return to where Tony Sloanе lives. He must turn pass the same place to get back home.
What happens? Clyde Jones swings up, is armed with now a lug wrench. Clyde Jones and Tony Sloane are involved in a fight. The lug wrench is discаrded, a woman arms Clyde Jones now with a third weapon, a knife. Tony Sloane is not able to get away. He‘s not able to retreat. He attempts to disarm Clyde Jones. They are involved in a struggle. And in the rolling around Clyde Jones is injured. He gets cut. He moves away; he runs away. Tony Sloane realizing what happened attempts to follow Clyde Jones and offer help. He‘s not able to find Clyde Jones. Tony Sloane returns to Perry Street.
........
Tony Sloane‘s intentions were to protect himself. He did not attempt to cause serious bodily injury to Clyde Jones. He did not intend, I submit to you, [to] сause serious bodily injury to Clyde Jones. Tony Sloane‘s intentions were self-protection. There was a struggle and Clyde Jones was cut. He was injured.
Defendant was acquitted of the possessiоn charge. Thus, the jury must have accepted at least aspects of defendant‘s version. Jones was clearly injured by a knife and while the jury found that defendant caused the injury it also found thаt defendant
There is no offense of causing serious bodily injury negligently, and no request was made for an instruction on causing bodily injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly,
It is evident that the jury found that defendant caused the injury with the requisite culрability.1
II.
In State v. Jones, 214 N.J. Super. 68 (App.Div. 1986), this court held that third degree aggravated assault involving a deadly weapon was not a lesser included offense of second degree aggravated assault (which does not rеquire use or possession of a deadly weapon) because of the added element. In so concluding, this court disagreed with State v. Berrios, 186 N.J. Super. 198 (Law Div. 1982) on which defendant now relies. The issue in Berrios was examined in connection with a merger application after the verdict. The position of the parties as to the charge, accordingly, did not have to be developed in the opinion.
State v. Jones, supra held that
The Jones court‘s rationale is valid on its face — that a deadly weapon is not an element of b(1), but is an element of b(2) and b(3). The difficulty with this approach, however, is that it requires the jury to decide only whether defendant is not guilty, or guilty of sеcond degree aggravated assault,
Upon conviction for violating
In this case Jones was stabbed through the bicep into his left arm. He was in the hospital five days recovering from the injuries and has two permanent scars, one on the inside and one
III.
We note that the trial court can charge
IV.
Defendant also challenges his sentence as еxcessive. However, given defendant‘s 10 prior convictions, including two indictable judgments entered before this offense occurred and one thereafter, we find no basis for disturbing the sentenсe imposed. State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334 (1984).
Affirmed.