State v. Hogan
764 A.2d 1012, 336 N.J.Super. 319 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor has a duty to instruct a grand jury on an exculpatory defense only when the evidence known to the prosecutor clearly indicates or clearly establishes the appropriateness of that defense. An indictment should only be dismissed for a prosecutor's instructional error if it was clearly capable of producing an unjust result.
Facts:
- New Jersey State Troopers John Hogan and James Kenna initiated a traffic stop of a minivan on the New Jersey Turnpike.
- After the troopers' vehicle stopped behind the minivan, the van, driven by Keshon Lamont Moore, rolled backward and made contact with the police car's front bumper.
- Trooper Kenna approached the passenger side of the van and, claiming the occupants were non-compliant and believing his partner was in danger, began firing his weapon into the vehicle.
- Trooper Hogan, positioned behind the van, claimed the van accelerated rapidly in reverse towards him, causing him to dive away and then fire his weapon at the driver to protect his life.
- The four occupants of the van—Moore, Danny Reyes, Leroy Germaine Grant, and Rayshawn Brown—were unarmed and on their way to a university for basketball scholarship tryouts.
- The occupants testified that the van rolled back accidentally after Moore tried to put it in park, and that the troopers began shooting without provocation as they tried to comply.
- Three of the four occupants sustained multiple gunshot wounds. A search of the van revealed no weapons or drugs.
- Forensic and mechanical expert testimony indicated the van impacted the police car at a very low speed (approx. 4 mph) and that the van's design made it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for its wheels to spin as the troopers claimed.
Procedural Posture:
- The State Grand Jury returned an indictment charging troopers John Hogan and James Kenna with attempted murder and aggravated assault.
- The State subsequently dismissed the attempted murder charge against Hogan.
- Defendants moved in the trial court to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment, alleging prosecutorial misconduct and inadequate legal instructions to the grand jury.
- The trial court judge granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the indictment.
- The State of New Jersey, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, with Hogan and Kenna as respondents.
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 prosecutor have a duty to instruct a grand jury on a potential exculpatory defense, and if so, under what circumstances does that duty arise?
Opinions:
Majority - Baime, P.J.A.D.
Yes, a prosecutor's duty to instruct a grand jury on possible defenses is a corollary to the responsibility to present exculpatory evidence, but this duty is limited. The court held that the duty arises only when two conditions are met: the defense must be exculpatory (i.e., would result in complete exoneration), and the facts known to the prosecutor must "clearly indicate or clearly establish" its appropriateness. The court rejected the lower court's reasoning for dismissal, finding the prosecutor was not required to instruct on the law enforcement exception to the duty to retreat because the duty to retreat was not ultimately charged to the grand jury. Furthermore, the prosecutor was not required to instruct on the use of force in law enforcement because the evidence did not clearly establish that the troopers were firing to effectuate an arrest, but rather for self-protection, and such a defense would be undermined by the substantial risk of injury to innocent passengers. The court also rejected claims of prosecutorial misconduct related to an intervening indictment, finding the state had taken appropriate measures to ensure the grand jury remained impartial.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the definitive test in New Jersey for when a prosecutor is obligated to instruct a grand jury on potential defenses. By limiting the duty to exculpatory defenses that are "clearly indicated" by the evidence, the court creates a high bar for defendants seeking to dismiss an indictment on grounds of improper instructions. This precedent balances the grand jury's role in screening out unfounded prosecutions against the risk of turning grand jury proceedings into mini-trials, thereby protecting the integrity of the indictment process from challenges based on minor or ambiguous instructional omissions.
