STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. ERNEST JEROME DUBOSE(11-06-0075, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5080-14T4

STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ERNEST JEROME DUBOSE,

Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________

Submitted September 20, 2017 – Decided September 26, 2017

Before Judges Haas and Rothstadt.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Morris County, Indictment No.
11-06-0075.

Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney
for appellant (Alison Perrone, Designated
Counsel, on the brief).

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Emily R. Anderson,
Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the
brief).

Appellant filed a pro se supplemental brief.

PER CURIAM

A Morris County grand jury charged defendant in a five-count

indictment with second-degree conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2 (count
one); second-degree official misconduct, N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2(a)

(count two); second-degree bribery in official and political

matters, N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2(c) (count three); second-degree

attempted theft by deception, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4(a) (count four);

and second-degree false contract payment claims, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-

34(a) (count five). Following a thirteen-day trial, the jury

convicted defendant of all of the charges. The trial judge

sentenced defendant to six years in prison on count one, and

concurrent six-year terms on counts two, three, four, five. This

appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant raises the following contentions:

POINT ONE

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTIONS MUST BE REVERSED
BECAUSE THE TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY
SUPPLEMENTED THE MODEL JURY CHARGES BY
PROVIDING THE JURY CONFUSING, SUPPLEMENTAL
DEFINITIONS OF KEY LEGAL TERMS. (Not Raised
Below).

POINT TWO

THE SIXTEEN-DAY BREAK IN THE MIDST OF JURY
DELIBERATIONS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT
TO A FAIR TRIAL.

In a pro se supplemental brief, defendant presents the

following arguments:

POINT ONE

DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED
BECAUSE HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL

2 A-5080-14T4
 RIGHTS AND N.J.S.A. [sic] CONST. ART 1[,]
PARAGRAPH 10 RIGHT TO CONFRONT WHERE [sic]
DENIED.

[POINT] TWO

DEFENDANT'S ORDER TO PAY RESTITUTION SHALL BE
REVERSED AS THE STATE WAS NOT A VICTIM WHO
SUFFERED A LOSS. THE MONEY SPENT BY THE STATE
WAS TO OBTAIN EVIDENCE.

POINT THREE

THE SIXTEEN DAY BREAK IN THE MIDST OF JURY
DELIBERATIONS DEPRIVED DEFEND[ANT] OF HIS
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL.

We find insufficient merit in these contentions to warrant

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). We add the

following brief comments.

During the jury's deliberations, it asked for definitions of

the terms "conscious object" and "criminal state of mind" as used

in the Model Jury Charges for the offenses defendant faced. The

trial judge consulted with defendant1 in the preparation of an

appropriate response, and defendant raised no objection to the

clear and fully responsive supplemental instruction the judge gave

to the jury. Under these circumstances, we discern no error, much

less plain error, in the judge's supplemental instruction. State

v. Baum, 224 N.J. 147, 159 (2016).

1
Defendant represented himself at trial with the assistance of
standby counsel.

3 A-5080-14T4
 We likewise find no merit in defendant's claim that a

scheduled sixteen-day break in the midst of the jury's

deliberations deprived him of his right to a fair trial. At the

outset of the trial, the judge advised the parties and the

prospective jurors that if the trial did not finish on April 2,

2015, there would be a break in the proceedings until April 20,

2015 due to various scheduling conflicts.

Prior to excusing the jurors at the end of the day on April

2, the judge carefully instructed them not to deliberate or talk

about the case until they returned on April 20. When the jurors

reported to court after the break, the judge thoroughly questioned

each juror individually to ensure that his instructions had been

followed. The judge also afforded defendant the opportunity to

ask follow-up questions, but he declined to do so. Therefore, we

reject defendant's contention on this point.

Affirmed.

4 A-5080-14T4