State v. Lopez

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the State's robbery statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a), does not encompass afterthought robbery, in which the intent to steal is formed only after the use of force. Because the trial court instructed the jury on the nonexistent afterthought-robbery theory, the robbery conviction was reversed. The court remanded for a retrial on the robbery count, rejecting the molding of the verdict to a lesser theft offense.

Holdings

1. N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a) does not encompass afterthought robbery. The intent to steal must precede or be coterminous with the use of force; force used for an unrelated reason cannot elevate a later theft to robbery.
2. The jury instruction and reinstruction were fatally defective because they authorized conviction for an afterthought robbery crime that New Jersey law does not recognize.
3. Retrial on the robbery charge was permissible because the robbery conviction was reversed for trial error, not insufficient evidence, and the State presented sufficient evidence to create a jury issue on robbery.
4. Molding the robbery verdict to a lesser-included theft offense was unwarranted because the evidence was sufficient to support a robbery conviction and the error required a new trial rather than entry of a theft judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1(a) encompasses afterthought robbery, in which the defendant forms the intent to steal only after using force for an unrelated reason.
2. Whether the erroneous jury instructions permitting conviction for afterthought robbery required reversal of the robbery conviction.
3. Whether the State could retry Lopez on the robbery charge after reversal for instructional error.
4. Whether the Appellate Division improperly molded the verdict to a lesser-included theft offense.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded