State v. Timothy J. Canfield (A-53-21) (086644)
(NOTE: The Court did not write a plenary opinion in this case. The Court affirms as modified the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Susswein’s opinion, published at 470 N.J. Super. 234 (App. Div. 2022).)
Argued November 7, 2022 -- Decided January 11, 2023 PER CURIAM
The Court considers the Appellate Division’s determination that it was not plain error for the trial court to fail to charge the jury on the lesser-included offense of passion/provocation manslaughter when defendant did not request the instruction. The Court also considers whether, as recommended by the Appellate Division, trial courts should be required in certain cases to consider whether to instruct the jury on that lesser-included offense even if no party requests the instruction.
In January 2013, defendant Timothy J. Canfield shot and killed K.P., his sister-in-law’s former boyfriend. Defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense. He testified that K.P., who was HIV-positive, came towards him during their argument while holding an object that defendant believed to be a hypodermic syringe. Defendant was charged with first-degree murder.
At the charge conference, defendant objected to giving any instruction on lesser-included offenses, but the trial court charged the jury on aggravated and reckless manslaughter. Defendant did not request an instruction on passion/ provocation manslaughter, and the court did not instruct the jury, sua sponte, on that lesser-included offense. The jury acquitted defendant of murder but convicted him of the lesser-included offense of aggravated manslaughter, among other offenses.
The Appellate Division held that it was not plain error for the trial court not to give the passion/provocation manslaughter instruction because even accepting defendant’s version of the fatal confrontation, that instruction was not clearly indicated. 470 N.J. Super. 234, 293 (App. Div. 2022). But the appellate court proposed a measure to ensure that the appropriateness of a passion/provocation manslaughter instruction be considered first by the trial court. Id. at 260.
1
The Appellate Division recommended a new procedural rule: “when, in a murder prosecution, the trial court determines to instruct the jury on self-defense at the charge conference . . . , the court should also consider and make specific findings on the record as to whether to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of passion/provocation manslaughter, regardless of whether either party has requested that instruction.” Ibid. To implement its proposed rule, the Appellate Division recommended that the model jury instructions for murder, aggravated manslaughter, manslaughter, and self-defense be reviewed. Id. at 301.
The Court granted certification. 251 N.J. 38 (2022).
HELD: The Court affirms as modified the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Susswein’s published opinion. The Court explains why it does not believe the Appellate Division’s proposed procedural rule is necessary.
1. The Appellate Division correctly applied the plain error standard of review because the invited error doctrine does not apply in this case. The trial court could not have actually relied on defendant’s position that the jury should not be charged on any lesser-included offenses because the trial court did charge the jury on two lesser-included offenses. (pp. 2-3)
2. Different standards apply depending on whether the defendant requests a lesser- included offense instruction. If the defendant requests such a charge, the trial court must include it if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there is a rational basis in the record for doing so. If the defendant does not request a lesser-included offense charge, the instruction is only required if “clearly indicated” by the facts in evidence. That is, only if the evidence is jumping off the page must the court give the instruction sua sponte. (pp. 3-4)
3. The Court adopts the Appellate Division’s analysis of why it was not plain error for the trial court not to give a passion/provocation instruction sua sponte. (pp. 4-5)
4. The Court departs from the Appellate Division’s decision only as to whether a new procedural rule is warranted. The Appellate Division, parties, and amici cite only three published cases in the past three decades in which a jury verdict was reversed because the court’s failure to instruct the jury on passion/provocationmanslaughter sua sponte was found to be plain error. Given the apparent infrequency of such plain errors, the Court does not view the Appellate Division’s proposed procedural rule to be critical to protecting otherwise valid jury verdicts from reversal. (pp. 5-8)
2
5. The “clearly indicated” standard was specifically created by appellate courts and is more appropriately a tool of post-verdict and appellate review. Because the Court believes the current practice correctly balances the interests of the prosecution, the defense, and the public, it declines to adopt the proposed rule. (pp. 8-9)
