Summary
The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a defendant charged solely with possession of a weapon by a convicted person is not entitled to a bifurcated trial separating the possession and prior-conviction elements. The court concluded that the elements should be tried in a unitary proceeding, with prejudice minimized through limiting instructions and sanitization of the predicate conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant charged solely with second-degree possession of a weapon by a convicted person is entitled to a bifurcated jury trial in which possession is decided before the jury learns of the prior-conviction element.
- Whether the trial court adequately minimized prejudice from the prior-conviction evidence through voir dire, sanitization of the predicate offense, and limiting instructions.
- Whether the case should be remanded for consideration of the defendant's remaining appellate arguments.
Holdings
- A defendant charged solely with possession of a weapon by a convicted person is not entitled to a bifurcated trial. The possession and prior-conviction elements should be tried together in one unitary proceeding.
- Potential prejudice may be mitigated through adequate limiting instructions and sanitization of the predicate offense. If the defendant stipulates to the qualifying conviction, the jury need be told only that the defendant was convicted of a predicate offense; absent a stipulation, the trial court should sanitize the offense and limit the evidence to the date of judgment.
Key quotations
“We are in accord with the majority view that the elements of an offense should be tried in a unitary trial in which prejudice is minimized by appropriate curative jury instructions.” (180 N.J. at 584)
“The better approach, and an approach more in keeping with the Legislature's design of the statute, is to keep N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7b intact in a unitary proceeding so long as an appropriate limiting instruction is given to reduce the risk of undue prejudice tainting the jury's work.” (180 N.J. at 585)
“We conclude that the trial court properly tried the sole count of possession of a weapon by a convicted person without bifurcation of the elements of that offense.” (180 N.J. at 586)
Factual background
Police responded to a dispatch in Asbury Park and observed Kevin Brown, who matched the description of the reported subject, near an apartment entrance. Brown reached under his sweatshirt and extended his hand toward a pillar; a subsequent search of the area uncovered a loaded nine-millimeter handgun and holster, although no weapon or identifiable fingerprints were found on Brown. Brown had prior convictions qualifying him for prosecution under New Jersey's felon-in-possession statute and stipulated that he fell within the class of persons prohibited from possessing a weapon.
Procedural history
Brown was indicted for unlawful possession of a weapon and possession of a weapon by a convicted person. The trial court initially ordered the possession count tried first, but the State dismissed that count after jury selection, leaving only the felon-in-possession charge. The Law Division tried the remaining charge in a unitary proceeding, and the jury convicted Brown. The Appellate Division reversed and remanded for a bifurcated trial. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification, reversed the Appellate Division, and remanded for consideration of Brown's remaining appellate arguments.
Remand instructions
Reverse the Appellate Division's judgment and remand to that court to consider defendant's remaining arguments, including the claims concerning dismissal of the possession count, hearsay, denial of judgment of acquittal, and excessive sentence.