State v. Mejia
141 N.J. 475, 662 A.2d 308 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a capital case where evidence supports both an intent to kill and an intent to cause serious bodily injury resulting in death, the trial court must instruct the jury that a non-unanimous finding as to which specific intent the defendant possessed results in a non-capital murder conviction. Additionally, the affirmative defense of claim of right is not available for the crime of robbery.
Facts:
- Defendant Rigoberto Mejia entrusted his co-worker, Balbino Garcia, with $750 of his savings for safekeeping.
- Mejia learned that Garcia was planning to leave the United States without returning the money.
- Mejia, armed with a .357 magnum and accompanied by an accomplice with a knife, confronted Garcia in the basement of the Breakers Hotel to demand the return of his money.
- During the confrontation, Garcia pushed his way out of the room and fled down a hallway.
- Mejia pursued Garcia and struck him on the head with the gun, causing a skull fracture.
- As Garcia continued to flee down the hallway, Mejia fired a single shot from his gun, which struck Garcia in the back.
- Garcia died from the gunshot wound a short time later.
- In his statement to police, Mejia claimed that he slipped while chasing Garcia and the gun discharged accidentally.
Procedural Posture:
- A Monmouth County Grand Jury charged Rigoberto Mejia with murder, felony murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, and weapons offenses.
- The prosecutor served a notice of aggravating factors, indicating the State's intent to seek the death penalty.
- In the Law Division (a state trial court), a jury found Mejia guilty on all counts.
- Following a separate penalty-phase hearing, the jury found that the aggravating factor outweighed the mitigating factors and sentenced Mejia to death.
- The trial court also sentenced Mejia to consecutive and concurrent prison terms for the non-capital convictions.
- Mejia filed a direct appeal of his convictions and death sentence to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 trial court commit reversible error in a capital case by failing to instruct the jury that it need not be unanimous in determining whether the defendant intended to kill or merely to cause serious bodily injury resulting in death, where a non-unanimous finding on that specific mental state would preclude the death penalty?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
Yes. The trial court's failure to give a proper jury instruction on the defendant's mental state constitutes reversible error regarding the death sentence. The court improperly gave a sequential charge that required the jury to unanimously acquit the defendant of 'intent-to-kill' murder before it could consider 'serious-bodily-injury' murder. Most critically, the court failed to instruct the jury that if it unanimously agreed the defendant committed murder, but could not unanimously agree on whether he intended to kill or merely to cause serious bodily injury, this finding would result in a final, non-capital conviction, not a hung jury. This error was not harmless because the evidence—including the single shot, Mejia's claim of an accident, and his initial use of the gun as a blunt instrument—provided a rational basis for a jury to find he intended only to cause serious bodily injury. The court also held that the 'claim of right' defense, applicable to theft, is not a defense to robbery, as robbery is a crime of violence against a person, and public policy disfavors the use of force to collect debts.
Concurring - Handler, J.
Yes. The death sentence should be reversed for the reasons stated by the majority, and also for two additional reasons. First, the trial court committed error by refusing to allow defense counsel to question potential jurors about their views on the recent, highly publicized life sentence given to notorious murderer Richard Biegenwald in the same county, which deprived the defendant of an adequate voir dire to ensure an impartial jury. Second, the State's rebuttal testimony during the penalty phase was improper because it mischaracterized the defendant's mitigating evidence of childhood abuse as an excuse for the crime (like an insanity defense) rather than as a plea for mercy, and in doing so introduced prejudicial, non-statutory aggravating factors such as future dangerousness.
Analysis:
This decision established a critical procedural safeguard in capital punishment jurisprudence in New Jersey at the time, clarifying that jury non-unanimity on the specific mental state for murder (intent-to-kill vs. serious-bodily-injury) results in a final verdict for non-capital murder, not a hung jury. It underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that a death sentence is imposed only when the jury is unanimously certain of the defendant's death-eligible intent. Furthermore, the court's definitive rejection of the claim-of-right defense for robbery solidifies the legal distinction between property crimes and violent crimes against persons, affirming that public policy will not sanction forcible self-help to resolve financial disputes.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Mejia