State v. Hardison
492 A.2d 1009 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under N.J.S.A. 2C:l-8a(2), a criminal conspiracy conviction merges with a conviction for a completed substantive offense that was an object of the conspiracy, unless the prosecution proves that the conspiracy had criminal objectives beyond the specific completed offense for which the defendant was convicted.
Facts:
- On the evening of November 19, 1980, four men, including defendants Hardison and Jackson, entered the Lincoln Cafe in New Brunswick.
- One of the men brandished a gun and forced the bartender to the floor while others herded two patrons into a bathroom.
- The four men stole cash from the register, the bartender's watch, and a patron's purse before fleeing in a red and white Cadillac.
- Shortly thereafter, two men entered the Edison Motor Lodge, robbed the night manager at gunpoint, and fled.
- During the Edison Motor Lodge robbery, one assailant threatened to kill the manager while the other, identified as Hardison, assaulted him with brass knuckles.
- Police pursued a suspicious red and white Cadillac in a high-speed chase that ended when the car crashed.
- Hardison and Jackson were apprehended near the crashed vehicle.
- A search of the car recovered the purse stolen from the Lincoln Cafe and a key to the Edison motel room.
Procedural Posture:
- Hardison and Jackson were charged in a state trial court with conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery of persons at the Lincoln Cafe, robbery and aggravated assault of the manager at the Edison Motor Lodge, and other offenses.
- A jury acquitted the defendants of the Lincoln Cafe robbery but convicted them of the Edison Motor Lodge robbery, the assault, the conspiracy, and weapons offenses.
- The trial court imposed separate and consecutive sentences for the conspiracy conviction and the robbery conviction.
- The defendants appealed to the Appellate Division, the state's intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions but held that the conspiracy and robbery convictions should merge, thereby vacating the consecutive sentence for conspiracy.
- The State's petition for certification to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, the state's highest court, was granted on the limited issue of merger.
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 a conviction for conspiracy merge with a conviction for a completed substantive crime that was an object of the conspiracy when the judgment of conviction does not establish that the conspiracy had additional criminal objectives beyond the completed crime?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Hern, J.
Yes. A conviction for conspiracy merges with the completed substantive offense when the conviction does not establish that the conspiracy had additional criminal objectives beyond that completed offense. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, specifically N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8a(2), treats a conspiracy that has only one criminal objective as a preparatory, or inchoate, offense. When the sole objective of that conspiracy is accomplished, the preparatory offense is subsumed by the completed crime. The court distinguished this from the common law rule, which traditionally treated conspiracy and the completed offense as separate crimes due to the inherent danger of group criminality. However, the Code provides that separate convictions and punishments are only appropriate where the conspiracy involves a broader course of criminal conduct with objectives that 'transcend any particular offenses that have been committed.' In this case, the jury acquitted the defendants of the Lincoln Cafe robbery but convicted them of the Edison Motor Lodge robbery and of conspiracy. The trial court's instructions permitted the jury to find a conspiracy based solely on the Edison robbery. Therefore, because the verdict does not definitively establish that the conspiracy embraced the Lincoln Cafe robbery or any other objective beyond the completed Edison robbery, the conspiracy conviction must merge with the robbery conviction.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of New Jersey's statutory merger doctrine under the Code of Criminal Justice, distinguishing it from the traditional common law approach. It establishes that for a defendant to be sentenced for both conspiracy and a completed substantive offense, the prosecution must prove that the conspiracy had broader criminal objectives than just the commission of that single offense. The decision places the burden on the prosecution to demonstrate the scope of the conspiracy at trial. It also highlights a procedural difficulty for courts in determining the specific basis of a jury's general verdict on a multi-object conspiracy count, suggesting that special interrogatories might be useful in such cases, despite their general disfavor in criminal law.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Hardison