Recently in Terroristic Threats Category

January 24, 2010

Conviction for Terroristic Threats Reversed on Appeal

The Appellate Division recently overturned this defendant's conviction for Terroristic Threats on appeal because the trial court gave the jury improper instructions before its deliberation.

State v. Anthony Parisi, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4660-07T4 (December 18, 2009) - Conviction for terroristic threats reversed.

"In this case, we conclude that errors in the charge on [N.J.S.A. 2C:12-]3a, although not the subject of an objection at trial, constituted plain error requiring reversal of the conviction and re-trial....

[T]he State's case under both subsections 3a and 3b was premised on defendant's alleged threat to kill DeCamp. The State did not argue that defendant was guilty because he cursed at DeCamp or pounded on the hood of her van, and neither of those actions are 'crimes' that would support a conviction under subsection 3a....

Nor did the judge explain to the jury the elements of 'assault.'... Further, in defining N.J.S.A. 2C:12-3b, the judge told them it was 'different' from 3a because 3b required a threat to kill. Consequently, the jury very well may have concluded that it did not need to find a threat to kill in order to convict defendant under 3a."

Bookmark and Share
January 15, 2010

NJ Criminal Law Update - Terroristic Threats Conviction Reversed

In this case, the appellate division recently reversed the conviction of a defendant convicted of terroristic threats after the trial court improperly admitted evidence.

State v. Anthony Parisi, unpublished opinion, App. Div. Docket No. A-4660-07T4 (December 18, 2009) - Conviction for terroristic threats reversed. "[T]he improper admission of defendant's letters threatening to sue CSP as well as other fundamentally irrelevant testimony about defendant's threats to file lawsuits against DeCamp and Zoyac may have confused the jury.

It was error to admit the letters to rebut a claim of mistake, under N.J.R.E. 404(b), because the defense made no such claim. Nor were the threats to file lawsuits otherwise relevant. Indeed, rather than focusing its case on the events of December 18, 2002, the prosecution placed before the jury prejudicial and irrelevant evidence designed to show that defendant was angry and difficult to deal with." See also JURY INSTRUCTIONS. (Rasheedah R. Terry, Designated Counsel)
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a4660-07.pdf

Bookmark and Share