unanimity instruction in New Jersey

2025An unanimity instruction, however, is required "in cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict." Id. at 517 (citing Frisby, 174 N.J. at 597-98 ).

2025On request, a defendant may seek a specific unanimity instruction when "it appears that a genuine possibility of jury confusion exists or that a conviction may occur as a result of different jurors concluding that a defendant committed conceptually distinct acts." Parker, 124 N.J. at 641 .

2025An unanimity instruction, however, is required "in cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict." Id. at 517 (citing Frisby, 174 N.J. at 597-98 ).

2024In determining whether a unanimity charge was required, "[t]he reviewing court should examine two factors: whether the acts alleged are conceptually similar or are 'contradictory or only marginally related to each other,' and whether there is a 'tangible indication of jury confusion.'" Macchia, 253 N.J. at 257 (quoting State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 193 (2010)). "[I]n cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict the trial court must upon request offer a specific unanimity instruction." Frisby, 174 N.J. at 597 -98 (quoting Parker, 124 N.J. at 637 ).

2024When the defendant failed at trial to request a specific instruction, we "must determine whether the absence of a specific unanimity charge 'was clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" A-2846-21 30 State v. Kane, 449 N.J.

2020In the absence of such a request, we "must determine whether the absence of a specific unanimity charge 'was clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" State v. Kane, 449 N.J.

2024In determining whether a unanimity charge was required, "[t]he reviewing court should examine two factors: whether the acts alleged are conceptually similar or are 'contradictory or only marginally related to each other,' and whether there is a 'tangible indication of jury confusion.'" Macchia, 253 N.J. at 257 (quoting State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 193 (2010)). "[I]n cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict the trial court must upon request offer a specific unanimity instruction." Frisby, 174 N.J. at 597 -98 (quoting Parker, 124 N.J. at 637 ).

2021However, our Supreme Court has also made clear that courts should provide "specific unanimity" instructions—that is, impose a requirement that the jury unanimously agree on the facts underlying the guilty verdict—when there is a specific request for those instructions and where there exists a danger of a fragmented verdict. [Absent such request,] the failure to provide a specific unanimity instruction in the absence of such a request will not necessarily constitute reversible error. [State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 192 (2010) (emphasis added).] Thus, when a defendant asserts on appeal that the

2019State v. Gentry, 183 N.J. 30, 33 (2005).

2018State v. Gentry, 183 N.J. 30 , 33 A-0413-16T4 15 (2005).

2014For example, under the Act, the unanimity requirement redounds to the benefit of the defendant by mandating that he or she must be sentenced to imprisonment rather than death unless the jury is unanimous on the imposition of the death penalty.5 [Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 159 (citations to out-of-state authority omitted) (emphasis added).] Because the statute only required a defendant to "produc[e] evidence of the existence of a mitigating factor," former 5 Of course, the statutory provision requiring imposition of a sentence other than death if the jury could not reach unanimity was also "fav

1994“The unanimity requirement extends only to verdicts adverse to the defendant, and the Legislature may provide for the return of a verdict favorable to the defendant on less than unanimity.” Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 159, 548 A.2d 887 .

2020We "must not look at portions of the charge alleged to be erroneous in isolation; rather, 'the charge should be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect,' and 'whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous.'" State v. McKinney, 223 N.J. 475, 494 (2015) (first quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997); and then quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 447 (2002)). "[I]n cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict the trial court must upon request offer a specific unanimity instruction." State v. Frisby, 174 N.J. 583, 597-98 (2002) (emphasis added) (quoti

2019Thus, given the absence of any objection, and the fact that the court followed the appropriate model jury charges,3 its failure to give a specific unanimity charge, instead of a general one, without any request, did not "possess[ ] a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." See State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008) (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)).

2017State v. Medina, 147 N.J. 43, 49 (1996) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 368, 375 (1970)), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1190 , 117 S.Ct. 1476 , 137 L.Ed.2d 688 (1997). "[T]he possibility that defendant may have been sentenced based on a less-than-unanimous verdict . . . seriously implicates defendant's substantive rights." State v. Shomo, 129 N.J. 248, 260 (1992). 16 A-1529-15T2 The unanimity rule mandates unanimous agreement on each element of the offense.

2017State v. Medina, 147 N.J. 43, 49 (1996) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 368, 375 (1970)), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1190 , 117 S.Ct. 1476 , 137 L.Ed.2d 688 (1997). "[T]he possibility that defendant may have been sentenced based on a less-than-unanimous verdict . . . seriously implicates defendant's substantive rights." State v. Shomo, 129 N.J. 248, 260 (1992). 16 A-1529-15T2 The unanimity rule mandates unanimous agreement on each element of the offense.

2002In these instances, the trial court must give an augmented unanimity instruction.” [United States v. Ryan, 828 F.2d 1010, 1020 (3d Cir.1987).] [ 124 N.J. at 635-36 , 592 A.2d 228 .] We concluded: Concerning the need for a specific unanimity instruction, we agree with the proposition stated in North I that is generally applied in the federal system: “in cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict the trial court must upon *598 request offer a specific unanimity instruction.” North I, supra, 910 F. 2d at 875; accord United States v. Ryan, supra, 828 F.2d 1010 ; United States v. Mangier

2002In these instances, the trial court must give an augmented unanimity instruction.” [United States v. Ryan, 828 F.2d 1010, 1020 (3d Cir.1987).] [ 124 N.J. at 635-36 , 592 A.2d 228 .] We concluded: Concerning the need for a specific unanimity instruction, we agree with the proposition stated in North I that is generally applied in the federal system: “in cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict the trial court must upon *598 request offer a specific unanimity instruction.” North I, supra, 910 F. 2d at 875; accord United States v. Ryan, supra, 828 F.2d 1010 ; United States v. Mangier

2021Our Supreme Court has held, however, that a specific unanimity requirement is necessary "in cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict" and, in such cases, "the trial court must upon request offer a specific unanimity instruction." Id. at 637 (quoting United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843, 875 (D.C.

2021Our Supreme Court has held, however, that a specific unanimity requirement is necessary "in cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict" and, in such cases, "the trial court must upon request offer a specific unanimity instruction." Id. at 637 (quoting United States v. North, 910 F.2d 843, 875 (D.C.

2020We "must not look at portions of the charge alleged to be erroneous in isolation; rather, 'the charge should be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect,' and 'whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous.'" State v. McKinney, 223 N.J. 475, 494 (2015) (first quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997); and then quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 447 (2002)). "[I]n cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict the trial court must upon request offer a specific unanimity instruction." State v. Frisby, 174 N.J. 583, 597-98 (2002) (emphasis added) (quoti

2002Also supporting our holding that the jury charge by itself was not erroneous was the trial court's statement to the jury that "each juror must individually decide whether any aggravating factor or aggravating factors unanimously found outweigh beyond a reasonable doubt the mitigating factor or mitigating factors that the juror has found to be present." Supra at 444-45, 803 A. 2d at 17 .

2004Article I, paragraph 9 of the New Jersey Constitution "presupposes a requirement of a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases," State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628, 633 , 592 A. 2d 228 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 1483 , 117 L.Ed. 2d 625 (1992), and R. 1:8-9 requires that the "verdict shall be unanimous in all criminal actions." The Supreme Court has determined that jury instructions regarding the unanimity requirement instills in the jury "the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude on the facts in issue." State v. Parker, supra, 124 N.J. at 633 , 592 A. 2d 228 (quo

2004Article I, paragraph 9 of the New Jersey Constitution "presupposes a requirement of a unanimous jury verdict in criminal cases," State v. Parker, 124 N.J. 628, 633 , 592 A. 2d 228 (1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 939 , 112 S.Ct. 1483 , 117 L.Ed. 2d 625 (1992), and R. 1:8-9 requires that the "verdict shall be unanimous in all criminal actions." The Supreme Court has determined that jury instructions regarding the unanimity requirement instills in the jury "the necessity of reaching a subjective state of certitude on the facts in issue." State v. Parker, supra, 124 N.J. at 633 , 592 A. 2d 228 (quo

2026The record does not permit us to determine whether the jury "actually found defendant guilty based on a shared vision of the evidence and through the application of clear and correct legal principles." Id. at 78 (citing State v. Simon, 79 N.J. 191, 206 (1979)).

2020We "must not look at portions of the charge alleged to be erroneous in isolation; rather, 'the charge should be examined as a whole to determine its overall effect,' and 'whether the challenged language was misleading or ambiguous.'" State v. McKinney, 223 N.J. 475, 494 (2015) (first quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997); and then quoting State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417, 447 (2002)). "[I]n cases where there is a danger of a fragmented verdict the trial court must upon request offer a specific unanimity instruction." State v. Frisby, 174 N.J. 583, 597-98 (2002) (emphasis added) (quoti

2019Thus, given the absence of any objection, and the fact that the court followed the appropriate model jury charges,3 its failure to give a specific unanimity charge, instead of a general one, without any request, did not "possess[ ] a clear capacity to bring about an unjust result." See State v. Adams, 194 N.J. 186, 207 (2008) (quoting State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997)).

2017"The necessity for a specific unanimity instruction arises, too, when the jury poses a question to the court showing 'their confusion regarding the unanimity issue.'" State v. Gentry, 370 N.J.

2017State v. Medina, 147 N.J. 43, 49 (1996) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072-73 , 25 L.Ed. 2d 368, 375 (1970)), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1190 , 117 S.Ct. 1476 , 137 L.Ed.2d 688 (1997). "[T]he possibility that defendant may have been sentenced based on a less-than-unanimous verdict . . . seriously implicates defendant's substantive rights." State v. Shomo, 129 N.J. 248, 260 (1992). 16 A-1529-15T2 The unanimity rule mandates unanimous agreement on each element of the offense.

2017See State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221 , 233- 35 (2014); R. 1:7-4.