STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM PITTMAN

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-6598-04T46598-04T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM PITTMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted May 1, 2007 - Decided May 15, 2007

Before Judges Skillman and Grall.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Indictment No. 03-08-1091.

Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the brief).

Bruce J. Kaplan, Middlesex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Simon Louis Rosenbach, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

William Pittman, appellant, filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

A jury found defendant guilty of escape, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5. The trial court sentenced defendant to a four-year term of imprisonment.

On appeal, the Public Defender has filed a brief on defendant's behalf which presents the following arguments:

I. THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. 1 PAR. 1 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO DEFINE THE ELEMENTS OF THE DEFENSE OF IRREGULARITY, ALLOWING THE JURORS TO DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT CONSTITUTES IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL AUTHORITY (Not Raised Below).

II. THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. 1 PAR. 1 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE LAW IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE (Not Raised Below).

III. THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. 1 PAR. 1 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LAW OF CAUSATION EVEN THOUGH IT WAS BOTH AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE AND A CONTESTED ISSUE IN THE CASE (Not Raised Below).

IV. THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ART. 1 PAR. 1 OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED BY THE JURY'S IMPROPER USE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED OTHER CRIMES (Not Raised Below).

V. THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

VI. THE SENTENCE IS EXCESSIVE: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY IMPROPERLY BALANCING THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS.

In addition, defendant has filed a pro se supplemental brief, which presents the following arguments:

I. DEFENDANT ARGUES THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND WAS A RESULT OF A FALSE AND MISLEADING SUMMATION BY THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR.

II. THE JURY VERDICT WAS A "RUSH TO JUDGMENT" IN ORDER TO REACH A VERDICT AND GO HOME WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF LACK OF EVIDENCE IN THE STATE'S CASE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IF THE JURY HAD WAITED TO HAVE THEIR QUESTION ANSWERED BEFORE RETURNING A VERDICT.

Defendant's arguments are clearly without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We only note that there was no factual foundation for any instruction to the jury regarding the defense of legal irregularity. Therefore, there is no basis for concluding that the instruction given with respect to this defense constituted plain error. There also was no basis for a causation instruction regarding the escape charge. Significantly, defendant did not request such an instruction at trial.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-6598-04T4

May 15, 2007