STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DENISE STAPLES

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0141-04T40141-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DENISE STAPLES,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Submitted: May 2, 2006 - Decided May 19, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lefelt.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Cumberland County, 03-07-0600.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Abby P. Schwartz, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief).

Ronald J. Casella, Cumberland County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Seth Levy, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Denise Staples, was charged with murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) or (2); aggravated manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a (first-degree); manslaughter, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4b (second-degree); and third-degree possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4d. A jury convicted her of murder and the weapon crime. The trial court merged the convictions and imposed a prison sentence of sixty years subject to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, i.e., fifty-one years without parole and five years of parole supervision upon release. Appropriate, statutorily mandated monetary assessments, fees, and penalties were ordered.

On appeal, defendant raises the following issues:

POINT I THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENTS DURING SUMMATION WERE IMPROPER AND SO PREJUDICIAL AS TO DENY DEFENDANT A FAIR TRIAL AND REQUIRE THE REVERSAL OF HER CONVICTIONS. U.S. CONST., AMEND. XIV; N.J. CONST., (1947), ART. 1, PARS. 10. (NOT RAISED BELOW)

POINT II THE FAILURE OF THE TRIAL COURT TO CHARGE INTOXICATION AS A DEFENSE TO THE OFFENSE OF MURDER WHICH REQUIRED A PURPOSEFUL OR KNOWING STATE OF MIND AND THE FAILURE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL TO REQUEST THIS CHARGE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW. U.S. CONST., AMENDS. VI, XIV; N.J. CONST. ART I, PARS. 1, 10. (NOT RAISED BELOW)

POINT III THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.

The homicide occurred at defendant's home in Bridgeton. The victim, Ernest Mathews, was Staples's boyfriend with whom, according to her, she had been living for "about two or three weeks."

The death followed an argument between Staples and Matthews after several hours in which both had been drinking alcoholic beverages. During the course of the argument, Staples contended, Mathews had demanded sex and attacked her physically. Staples testified that she stabbed the victim with a kitchen knife during the extended altercation.

Defendant gave statements to the police at the scene and later at police headquarters. She testified at trial.

The issues as presented to the jury included the questions whether the stabbing was an act of self-defense, had been premeditated, or involved a lesser degree of culpability than required for a murder conviction.

Our review of the record in the light of the arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards discloses that none of the issues raised on appeal have sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

We discern nothing in the prosecutor's summation amounting to misconduct that would invalidate the guilty verdict. Credibility was a key issue in the case. It was not inappropriate for the State to argue to the jury that defendant had not told the truth.

Defense counsel at trial did not request a charge on intoxication, and there was no sufficient evidence at trial that defendant's faculties had been "so prostrated that . . . she was incapable of forming an intent to commit the crime," State v. Green, 318 N.J. Super. 361, 370 (App. Div. 1999), aff'd o.b., 163 N.J. 140 (2000), as to require the court, sua sponte, to give such a charge. See State v. Mauricio, 117 N.J. 402, 418-19 (1990); State v. Cameron, 104 N.J. 42, 56 (1986); State v. Micheliche, 220 N.J. Super. 532, 543 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 109 N.J. 40 (1987). Whether or not defense counsel could have and should have developed such a showing and requested the charge is a matter that requires further development. We reject defendant's ineffective assistance arguments without prejudice to her opportunity to raise them on an application for post-conviction relief. See State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 460 (1992).

We discern no misapplication of discretion in the sentence imposed or in the trial court's reasons therefor.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-0141-04T4

May 19, 2006