Appellate court reverses conviction of Newark man
Shariff Ingram to get new trial in robbery/shooting death
BY KATHY CHANG
Staff Writer

A state Appellate Division court has ordered a new trial for a 36-year-old Newark man last week who was sentenced to 30 years in prison without parole in 2002 for his role in a 2000 robbery that led to the fatal shooting death of a 19-year-old man in a Woodbridge Terrace apartment.

The court's decision on Aug. 1 reversed Shariff Ingram's conviction of felony murder, conspiracy, robbery and theft.

Middlesex County Assistant Prosecutor Simon Louis Rosenbach, who argued the case for the state, said his office is still evaluating the court's opinion.

"Whether my office agrees with the court's opinion or not, it's premature to say," said Rosenbach, who has until Aug. 21 to decide if his office will take the case to Supreme Court. "We are looking over the comprehensive opinion and then we will decide what our next step will be."

Ingram was one of four men - Saalam Brown of Newark, Lynn Anthony Smith, 38, of Newark, and Christopher Moore, 25, of Orange, were the other three - and one woman, Jasmine Hampton, who authorities say were involved in the robbery of a safe that led to the murder of Corey Maddox, who was shot once in the head with a handgun on Feb. 15, 2000.

Authorities alleged that the group traveled to Woodbridge from Newark in order for Brown to pick up his money from a Woodbridge Terrace apartment, which authorities alleged was a narcotics distribution center.

The firearm used to shoot Maddox was never recovered. Police recovered a spent 9 mm cartridge found near Maddox's body and also marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and bullet fragments from the crime scene.

Brown was killed within a week or two after the Feb. 15 incident. Smith reached a plea agreement with the state and received a 20-year prison sentence for his involvement in the crime. Hampton received a 13-year sentence for her involvement in the crime. Moore was acquitted on all the charges.

Ingram did not testify or appear at his five-day trial in October 2002. During the trial, Ingram's attorney told the court that he was unable to locate him. The judge determined that the jury should be told that they could make an inference of the defendant's guilt if they thought he fled to avoid conviction.

On Oct. 31, 2002, Ingram was sentenced to 30 years on the felony murder conviction with a 30-year parole disqualification. The judge merged the conspiracy, robbery and theft convictions into the felony-murder conviction.

Ingram was arrested in Warren County on Nov. 7, 2002, a few days after a bench warrant was issued following his conviction. Ingram again tried to flee at that time, but was shot in Pennsylvania. He subsequently pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania to fleeing and eluding.

Ingram's appellate court appeal included four points:

The court violated State v. Bielkiewicz because it failed to charge that although the principals committed robbery, Ingram may have acted as an accomplice only to a lesser-included offense.

The court erred in providing the jurors with a flight charge because the prejudicial effect of that charge outweighed any probative value the defendant's failure to attend the trial may have had.

The prosecutor misrepresented the legal defense to felony murder and the court erred in failing to correct the prosecutor's misstatements.

Hindering apprehension is a lesser-included offense of robbery as an accomplice, and the trial court committed plain error when it failed to provide the jurors with the option of convicting Ingram of that lesser offense.

The court's opinion said even though they found most of Ingram's arguments without merit, they reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial because the jury instructions on issues of accomplice liability did not adhere to the requirements of State v. Bielkiewicz.

And although the defense counsel for Ingram did not object to the omission of [the lesser charge] during the trial, the court cited that "appropriate and proper charges to a jury are essential for a fair trial" from State v. Green.

The appellate court said the prosecution's case against Ingram was "predicated on a theory of his liability as an accomplice to the robbery [and the associated fatal shooting of Maddox] that took place in the Woodbridge apartment while he was indisputably outside." The court also said the state did not allege that Ingram physically took any money, drugs or the safe from the premises, nor that he pointed or discharged any firearms.

The court found that Ingram's role as an accomplice essentially stemmed from his involvement in driving Moore and Smith to and from the crime scene while guiding Brown to that location in Woodbridge and his subsequent receipt of cash from Brown.