On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, 05-04-0972-I.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Collester and Sabatino.
Pursuant to leave granted, the State appeals from the entry of an order for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding defendant's conviction by jury verdict for possession of cocaine in a school zone with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7. We reverse.
Defendant Joseph Jones was indicted on charges of third- degree possession of cocaine, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10a(1) (count one); third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3) (count two); third- degree possession of cocaine in a school zone with intent to distribute, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (count three); third- degree distribution of cocaine, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5b(3) (count four); and third-degree distribution of cocaine in a school zone, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7 (count five).
The State's proofs were that on January 7, 2005, at about 5:30 p.m., Asbury Park Police Officers Philip J. Montgomery and Lorenzo M. Pettway were working undercover in their vehicle when they saw defendant walking down Main Street. Since they knew of an outstanding arrest warrant for defendant, the officers drove around the block and parked at a nearby intersection. Using binoculars, Montgomery saw defendant "sprinkling" what he believed to be crack cocaine into the hand of an individual later identified as Robert Jones, no relation to defendant. Robert Jones then handed defendant a DVD player. The officers then moved in to make arrests. Montgomery arrested the defendant, who was still holding the DVD player. Pettway went after Robert Jones and saw him throw something to the ground.
Pettway picked it up, saw it was a "rock" of crack cocaine. The alleged transaction involving the crack cocaine and DVD player took place within 1,000 feet of the Thurgood Marshall Elementary School.
Robert Jones entered a guilty plea to possession of cocaine and testified for the State. He said that he walked up to defendant and asked him if he wanted to buy the DVD player. Defendant told that him he did not have money but did have "product" in exchange. Robert Jones agreed. When he saw Officer Pettway approach, Robert Jones threw the cocaine away. Defendant testified he was walking home and talking on his cell phone when Robert Jones approached him and asked him to buy a DVD player still in its box. Defendant agreed to pay $10 and was reaching in his pocket for the money when the two police officers got out of a van. He related that Robert Jones fled and left the DVD player at defendant's feet. Officer Montgomery then arrested defendant for possession of stolen property.
Defendant claimed that he never possessed the DVD player or cocaine and did not distribute anything to Robert Jones. The jury began its deliberations on March 9, 2006. After about five and one half hours, they notified the trial judge late in the afternoon that they could not agree upon a verdict. The judge excused them and ordered them to return the next morning, when he gave them an instruction pursuant to State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (1980). The jury resumed deliberations and later requested and received a read back of defendant's testimony. An hour later the jury returned its verdict, finding defendant guilty of third-degree possession of cocaine, not guilty of third-degree possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, guilty of third-degree possession of cocaine in a school zone with intent to distribute, not guilty of third- degree distribution of cocaine, and not guilty of third-degree distribution of cocaine in a school zone.
On March 20, 2006, defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal, asserting that the jury verdict was fatally inconsistent. The trial judge denied vacating the conviction for possession of cocaine but granted the motion for acquittal for possession of cocaine in a school zone with the intent to distribute, giving the following reasons:
I find it is not the inconsistency in the verdicts as it is the jury's failure to follow the Court's instructions on Count 3 which presents the problem with this verdict.
The New Jersey Supreme Court held in State v. Banko, 182 N.J., held that generally a jury may render inconsistent verdicts so long as there exists a sufficient evidential basis in the record to support the charge on which the defendant is convicted.
Banko was decided based on an earlier Supreme Court decision in State v. Grey, 147 N.J., which held that inconsistent verdicts are permitted provided they are based on sufficient evidence unless the inconsistent verdicts preclude the establishment of an ...