STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STEVEN ST. FLEUR

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4557-03T44557-03T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEVEN ST. FLEUR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________

 

Argued: April 25, 2006 - Decided October 12, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Hoens.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Criminal Part, Essex County, 02-04-1363.

Jacqueline E. Turner, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney; Ms. Turner, of counsel and on the brief).

Maryann K. Lynch, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Paula T. Dow, Essex County Prosecutor, attorney; Ms. Lynch, of counsel and on the brief).

Appellant filed a pro se brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant, Steven St. Fleur, and a co-defendant, Gregory Ulysse, were charged with conspiracy to commit murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 and N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3 (count one); two murders, of Emmanuel Previllon and Edner Pierre, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a(1) and (2) (counts two and three); second-degree aggravated assault upon Reginald Fils, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1b(1) (count four); third-degree unlawful possession of a handgun, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5b (count five); and second-degree possession of a firearm for unlawful purpose, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a (count six). Another co-defendant, Fangshiyu Florexil, was charged in count five, as well.

The trial of co-defendant Ulysse was severed. Co-defendant Florexil had pled guilty to the weapon charge.

After trial of the instant charges, the jury acquitted defendant of the murder of Pierre and lesser included crimes regarding that charge, and of the aggravated assault charge. The jury convicted defendant of conspiracy to commit murder; of murder, specified as "the murder of Emmanuel Previllon by conspiring with Gregory Ulysse"; and of the two weapon crimes charged.

The trial court sentenced defendant on the murder to thirty years of imprisonment without parole, after merging the convictions for conspiracy and possession of a firearm for unlawful purpose into the murder conviction. On the unlawful possession of a handgun conviction, a concurrent sentence of four years' imprisonment was imposed. Appropriate statutory assessments, fees and penalties were also ordered.

On appeal, counsel for defendant raises the following issues:

POINT I THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN DENYING THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL ON THE MURDER AND CONSPIRACY COUNTS AS THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY.

POINT II THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN EXPLAINING TO THE JURY THE MEANING OF "NO BILL" WHEN SUCH INFORMATION WAS NOT CONTAINED IN THE RECORD.

Defendant, in a pro se brief, raises the following issues:

POINT I THE STATE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF TO DEMONSTRATE THAT DEFENDANT CONSPIRED WITH GREG ULYSSE TO COMMIT THE CRIME OF MURDER VIOLATING DEFENDANT [SIC] RIGHTS UNDER N.J. CON. ART. I PARA. I. & U.S.C.A. 6TH. & 14th.

POINT II TRIAL COURTS [SIC] ERRONEOUS INSTRUCTION ON CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER WAS MISLEADING AND VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT; N.J.S.A. CONST. ART. I, PAR. 9.

POINT III TRIAL COURTS [SIC] DECISION NOT TO CHARGED [SIC] THE JURY SUE SPONTE [SIC] WITH THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER AND MANSLAUGHTER WAS IN VIOLATION TO U.S.C.A. CONST. AMEND. SIXTH N.J.S.A. CONST. ART. 1 PAR 9.

After analyzing the record in the light of the arguments advanced and prevailing legal standards, we affirm.

The charges arose from events that began at a barbeque at a residence in Maplewood. Defendant, the co-defendants, and the victims were all in attendance. A dispute arose between Ulysse and Previllon, and a gunshot was fired. The partygoers dispersed. According to most witnesses, that gunshot had been fired by Ulysse. About forty-five minutes later, at the location of another party in Newark, a confrontation occurred between two groups of men from the first party. Reginald Fils and Pierre were passengers in a white Acura driven by Previllon. Florexil was driving a black Pathfinder in which defendant, Ulysse, and Edson Sainte were passengers. During the confrontation, a number of gunshots were fired resulting in the deaths of Previllon and Pierre, and injuries to Florexil and Fils.

Florexil testified at trial as a witness for the State. He related that he had observed defendant with a revolver in his hand. Ulysse, Sainte, and defendant drove Florexil to the hospital. During the drive, Sainte heard Ulysse say: "I think I hit one;" and defendant respond: "I think I got one, too."

A colloquy at the conclusion of Florexil's testimony produced evidence that he, too, had been initially charged in a criminal complaint with the murders, that he had "[e]ventually . . . pled guilty to possessing a gun[,]" and that he had not been sentenced yet. He responded in the negative to a question whether any promise had been made by the State in return for his testimony.

The essence of Florexil's testimony was that, at the Maplewood site, Ulysse had handed Florexil the firearm Florexil was charged with wielding. Ulysse took it back some twenty seconds later, and fired it. They then drove off together to the Newark location. When, on cross-examination, Florexil disclosed that he had initially been charged with murder, defense counsel's next question was: "And you wind up not being charged with anything except unlawful possession of a weapon, right?" That question drew a request from the State for a side bar conference.

At side bar, counsel and the court discussed the procedural history in this regard: that Florexil had been charged with the murders in a criminal complaint, but that the grand jury had eventually indicted him only for the weapon charge. During that conference, the term "no billed" was used in reference to the grand jury's action, and it was agreed that that action would be disclosed to the jury. During the course of the continued cross-examination that ensued, the following colloquy occurred:

Q . . . [Y]ou're familiar, by the way, that the grand jury no billed you on all the murder and conspiracy charges, right?

A Yeah.

Q So you were then left with unlawful possession of a weapon, right?

A Yes.

Q And you then pled guilty to that, right?

A Yes.

The cross-examination then proceeded with defense counsel suggesting that Florexil should not be believed because he had struck a very favorable bargain with the State. The cross-examination ended with a question to Florexil that elicited a positive response: "It's no billed in the grand jury and you sit here today hoping to not even have a weapons' conviction, but PTI, right?" The theme tied in with counsel's attack in summation on Florexil's credibility.

We have analyzed the record in the light of the issues raised on appeal and reject the arguments offered by defendant. Ample evidence was produced from which the jury could logically and reasonably have inferred that defendant and Ulysse had conspired to commit the crime of murder. We may not overturn a jury verdict that is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record. See State v. Landeros, 20 N.J. 76 (1955); State v. Buffa, 51 N.J. Super. 218, 235 (App. Div. 1958). Focusing on the alleged conduct of defendant and Ulysse both before and after the murder of Previllon occurred, we agree substantially with Judge Ravin's rationale for denying defendant's motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge.

We discern no flaw warranting our intervention in the trial court's charge to the jury on conspiracy. No objection was entered with respect to that portion of the charge or any other. Also, especially in the light of defendant's emphatically stated position at trial that a charge on lesser-included crimes with respect to the shooting of Previllon should not be given, we discern no basis in the record that would have supported a trial court determination that such a charge should nevertheless be delivered.

Finally, we agree with the trial judge that the jury was entitled to a response to its request during deliberations for a definition of the term "no-billed", which had come into the record on Florexil's cross-examination. The response the court gave the jury after conferring with counsel who differed on how the court should handle the matter was: "A no bill is a determination by the grand jury not to return an indictment." That response was simple, accurate and neutral. It gave the jury the information it had sought that would enable it to understand the testimony it had heard.

For all the foregoing reasons, the convictions are affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

8

A-4557-03T4

October 12, 2006