On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Indictment No. 05-08-0120.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Grall and Gilroy.
A jury found defendant Diane M. Oakley guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, and attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, which are both crimes of the first degree, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-4a. After merging the conspiracy conviction with the conviction for attempted murder, the judge sentenced defendant to a term of imprisonment for ten years subject to terms of parole ineligibility and parole supervision required by the No Early Release Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and imposed the appropriate fines, penalties and assessments. Defendant appeals and we affirm.
The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to permit the jury to find that defendant gave "Juan," a man to whom she was introduced by a friend, $1000 and photographs of her husband in return for Juan's promise to kill her husband if she agreed to pay an additional $25,000 after the deed was done. The jury could also have found that defendant showed Juan a copy of the policy of insurance on her husband's life that would cover the amount due Juan on their contract and leave her with a profit. Unknown to defendant, Juan was a detective employed by the New Jersey Division of State Police who was working undercover.
Defendant's friend had contacted the FBI after she told him she wanted to hire someone to kill her husband, but the FBI referred defendant's friend to the State Police. Defendant's friend agreed to cooperate with the State Police, and subsequent conversations between defendant and her friend, and defendant and Juan were recorded. The jurors heard the recordings of those conversations and were given transcripts with an instruction that the evidence was what they heard on the recording not what they read in the transcript, which were provided only as a guide for their use in listening to the recordings.
On appeal defendant raises objections to the jury instructions that were not raised below. Specifically, she contends:
I. THE JUDGE'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ON ATTEMPTED MURDER, THE RECORDED CONVERSATIONS, AND THE PROPER USE OF TRANSCRIPTS, WERE LEGALLY INADEQUATE, AND DENIED MS. OAKLEY DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL. U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V, VI XIV; N.J. CONST. ART. 1, PARS. 1, 9, 10. (Not Raised Below).
A. The Instructions On Attempted Murder.
B. The Instructions Concerning The Recordings.
C. Instructions Concerning The Proper Use of Transcripts.
In a supplemental brief filed by defendant on her own behalf, she raises ...