State v. Brown
325 N.J.Super. 447, 739 A.2d 975 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Mere possession of an ordinary knife in a pocket during a robbery, without evidence of use or intent to use, is insufficient to elevate the offense to first-degree robbery. However, the same act of carrying the knife can constitute a separate offense of possessing a weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for its lawful use.
Facts:
- On the evening of July 24, 1996, an elderly woman shopped at a Pathmark supermarket, purchasing items including a Tastykake cake and a can of Folger's coffee.
- While walking home on Churchill Avenue, she was struck from behind by an assailant, causing her to fall and sustain injuries.
- The assailant stole her shopping bag and pocketbook and fled. The victim observed that her attacker was a black male.
- Four juveniles provided police with a description of a man they had seen running in the area.
- Shortly after, a police officer stopped Joe Brown, who matched the description and was running from the direction of the crime, breathing heavily and perspiring.
- The officer discovered an ordinary kitchen knife with a five-inch blade protruding from the front pocket of Brown's pants.
- A search of Brown's other pocket revealed a Tastykake cake identical to the one purchased by the victim.
- The victim's purse was found between the crime scene and where Brown was arrested; a can of Folger's coffee inside the purse had Brown's thumbprint on it.
Procedural Posture:
- A Mercer County Grand Jury indicted Joe Brown on charges including first-degree robbery and fourth-degree possession of a weapon.
- Following a trial, a jury acquitted Brown of first-degree robbery but found him guilty of second-degree robbery and fourth-degree possession of a weapon.
- The trial court judge imposed an extended prison sentence for the robbery and a consecutive sentence for the weapon possession charge.
- Brown (defendant-appellant) appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does carrying an ordinary knife in a pocket during a robbery, without using it or intending to use it, constitute being 'armed with a deadly weapon' for the purposes of a first-degree robbery charge, and separately, does it constitute possession of a weapon 'under circumstances not manifestly appropriate' for its lawful use?
Opinions:
Majority - Coburn, J.A.D.
No as to the first part of the question, but yes as to the second. Carrying an ordinary knife without use or intent to use does not qualify as being armed with a 'deadly weapon' to elevate robbery to the first degree, but it does satisfy the elements for the separate crime of possessing a weapon under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for its lawful use. For an object that is not a weapon per se to be considered a 'deadly weapon' for first-degree robbery under N.J.S.A. 2C:11-1c, the state must show it was used, or the defendant intended to use it, to cause death or serious injury. Citing State v. Riley, the court found that mere possession of the knife in a pocket, with no evidence of use or intent, was insufficient to meet this standard, and the trial court erred in not dismissing the first-degree charge. However, the court found this error did not prejudice the jury's verdict on the lesser second-degree robbery charge due to overwhelming evidence of Brown's guilt and the judge's instructions. In contrast, for the conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5d (possession of a weapon under inappropriate circumstances), the statute does not require proof of intent to use the weapon for an unlawful purpose. Instead, it focuses on the circumstances of possession. Here, the incriminating circumstances—possessing a kitchen knife (an object that does not belong in a pocket) while fleeing the scene of a violent robbery—were not 'manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as it may have,' thus justifying the conviction on that count.
Analysis:
This case provides a critical clarification of New Jersey's weapon and robbery statutes, reinforcing the distinction between being 'armed with a deadly weapon' for robbery and unlawful possession of a weapon. It solidifies the precedent that elevating a robbery to first degree requires more than mere possession of an ordinary object; it demands evidence of the actor's intent to use it as a weapon. At the same time, the decision empowers prosecutors by confirming that the circumstances surrounding the possession of an object—such as carrying a kitchen knife while committing a felony—can be sufficient to secure a conviction for a separate weapons offense, even when intent to use is not proven. This creates a dual-track for liability, ensuring accountability even if the higher-level robbery charge fails.
