State v. Pena
839 A.2d 870, 178 N.J. 297, 2004 N.J. LEXIS 10 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4b, the 'incomplete' mistake-of-fact defense is available when a defendant claims to have been committing a different, uncharged offense, even if that offense is not a lesser-included offense of the crime charged in the indictment.
Facts:
- Jose Pena became acquainted with Rudolpho Santana, a man Pena knew sold stolen goods.
- Santana hired Pena for $2,000 to fly to Houston, Texas, retrieve what Pena believed were stolen fur coats, and transport them back to the New York area via Newark Airport.
- Santana provided Pena with a cash-purchased plane ticket for the trip.
- In Houston, Pena was met by a man named 'Antonio,' taken to a house, and given what he described as six full-length, 'furry' coats.
- Pena testified that he packed the six coats into a single suitcase, aware that he was committing the crime of receiving stolen property.
- The next day, Pena flew from Houston to Newark with the suitcase.
- Upon arriving at Newark Airport and claiming the suitcase, Port Authority police officers, acting on a tip, detained Pena.
- Pena consented to a search of the suitcase, which revealed not fur coats, but approximately 15 kilograms of cocaine.
Procedural Posture:
- Jose Pena was indicted in a New Jersey trial court for third-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS) and first-degree possession of CDS with intent to distribute.
- Pena's initial conditional plea was vacated on appeal by the Appellate Division, which found no factual basis for the plea because he maintained his innocence.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where Pena requested a jury instruction on the 'incomplete' mistake-of-fact defense, arguing the jury could convict him of receiving stolen property.
- The trial court denied the requested instruction.
- The jury found Pena guilty on both drug counts.
- Pena appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction, agreeing that the instruction was not required because receiving stolen property is not a lesser-included offense.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Pena's petition for certification on the limited issue of the trial court's denial of the mistake-of-fact jury instruction.
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 the 'incomplete' mistake-of-fact defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4b permit a defendant to request a jury instruction for an uncharged, non-lesser-included offense that he claims he believed he was committing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice LaVecchia
Yes, the 'incomplete' mistake-of-fact defense permits such an instruction. The trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury that if it believed the defendant's testimony that he thought he was transporting stolen fur coats, it could convict him of the uncharged, non-lesser-included offense of receiving stolen property. The court's reasoning is based on the text and history of N.J.S.A. 2C:2-4b, which was adopted from the Model Penal Code (MPC). The MPC drafters explicitly considered and rejected limiting this defense to only lesser-included offenses. The purpose of the statute is to ensure that a defendant's liability is measured by his culpability, not the actual, unintended consequences of his conduct. To deny the instruction would render the statute superfluous and force the jury into an all-or-nothing choice between conviction on a grave offense for which the defendant may lack the required mental state, or a complete acquittal despite the defendant's admitted criminal intent.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Verniero
The failure to provide the mistake-of-fact instruction was harmless error and does not warrant a new trial. While the majority's statutory analysis is correct, the evidence of defendant's guilt on the drug charges was overwhelming. The defendant's claim that he believed he was carrying six 'long sleeve, very furry' fur coats in the average-sized suitcase was 'utterly implausible.' Given the physical impossibility of his story and the other evidence (e.g., one-way cash ticket, source city for drugs), the jury clearly rejected his defense. Therefore, providing the specific jury instruction would not have altered the verdict, and the conviction should stand.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'incomplete' mistake-of-fact defense in New Jersey, confirming it is not limited to lesser-included offenses. It establishes that the core principle is matching punishment to culpability, allowing a jury to convict a defendant of the crime he admits he intended to commit. This prevents an 'all-or-nothing' dilemma where a jury might acquit a defendant who is clearly culpable of some wrongdoing. Procedurally, it treats a defendant's request for such an instruction as a waiver of the right to indictment for the uncharged offense, resolving a potential constitutional issue.
