State v. Barnes
Appellate Docket No.: A-0659-18T4
Submitted by New Jersey Drug Crime Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
In an unpublished opinion, the Appellate Division of New Jersey heard argument on the issue of an improper jury charge.
In State v. Barnes, the Defendant was indicted for third-degree possession of heroin, N.J.S.A.2C:35-10(a)(1); second-degree possession of heroin, with the intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2); third-degree possession of heroin, with the intent to distribute within 1000 feet of a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a); second-degree possession of heroin, with the intent to distribute within 500 feet of certain public property, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1(a); second-degree distribution of heroin, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1)/2C:35-5(b)(2); and fourth-degree attempting to hinder apprehension by flight, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-2(a)(2).
The judge charged the jury correctly regarding the N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1) possession charge and the second-degree possession with the intent to distribute under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(2). However, when instructing the jury for third-degree possession of heroin with the intent to distribute within 1000 feet of a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a), the judge erroneously used, at least in part, the distribution charge, under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5.
The jury acquitted defendant of the hindering charge but returned a guilty verdict on the possession and possession with intent to distribute charges: third degree possession, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1); second-degree possession with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and 5(b)(2); third-degree possession with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of a school zone, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7(a); and second-degree possession with intent to distribute within 500 feet of public property.
The Appellate Division found that the trial judge had improperly instructed the jury on the distribution within a school zone charge. However, because defendant’s attorney did not object to the improper charge, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter under the “plain error” approach, in which the mistake must have clearly been capable of producing an unjust result. In this situation, the Appellate Court found such an unjust result and revered and remanded for Defendant to have a new trial.
It is vital for your attorney to be knowledgeable of not only the law, but also the jury charges that follow a crime.
At Hark & Hark, we represent clients in Superior Court for criminal matters like the present case. We vigorously defend our clients by fighting to ensure prosecutors, police, and even judges follow the law.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing criminal charges similar to this circumstance, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Mercer, Ocean, and Salem counties.
