862.225.1965
On April 11, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division decided State of New Jersey v. Mohammad Ramadan, ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2025), which reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss count two of an indictment charging him with first-degree attempted murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-1, 2C:11-3. The Appellate Division found that the grand jury had been provided with incorrect and misleading instructions regarding attempted murder in New Jersey.
Background and Procedural History in the Attempted Murder New Jersey Case
In November 2021, defendant Mohammad Ramadan allegedly attacked 79-year-old Ira Levine at his law office in Bergen County. When the police arrived, they found Levine disoriented and suffering serious head trauma. Initial impressions suggested a fall, but further investigation revealed significant injuries, including a cranial hemorrhage and broken facial bones.
Ramadan, who had worked as the office’s IT service provider for years, had visited the law office briefly that day. A paralegal testified that Ramadan behaved strangely and abruptly left after a short interaction with Levine. That same day, the victim’s son, Joshua Levine, received disturbing texts and a phone call from Ramadan expressing confusion and emotional turmoil. Ramadan was arrested and the grand jury returned an indictment charging him with, among other counts, attempted murder in New Jersey.
Grand Jury Instructions and Legal Misstatements in the Attempted Murder New Jersey Indictment
The Appellate Division found significant errors in grand jury instruction on the charge of attempted murder in New Jersey. Although the prosecutor initially accurately presented the correct legal standard—that the defendant must have had a specific intent to kill—the instructions were later muddled by statements suggesting that an intent to cause “serious bodily injury” resulting in death would suffice.
New Jersey law is clear that attempted murder requires a purposeful intent to cause death, not merely serious bodily harm. By introducing an alternative theory of criminal intent, the prosecutor effectively misled the grand jury. The prosecutor failed to properly correct these misstatements and instead repeated them during a re-instruction requested by the jury—further contributing to potential confusion.
Impact of Misleading Legal Instructions on the Attempted Murder New Jersey Charge
Despite the prosecutor’s repetition of the correct standard at other points, the Appellate Division determined that these correct statements did not neutralize the earlier legal misstatements. Grand jurors are not legally trained and may not be equipped to identify and disregard such critical discrepancies. This confusion was evidenced by their follow-up questions and requests for clarification.
The Appellate Court emphasized that this was not a case of mere imprecision, but rather a “blatantly wrong” instruction that created a significant risk that the grand jury indicted Ramadan without finding the legally required intent to cause death.
Gilliam Precedent Applied to Attempted Murder New Jersey Instructions
In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division drew from its earlier ruling in State v. Gilliam, 224 N.J. Super. 759 (App. Div. 1988), where a similarly incorrect instruction on attempted murder led to reversal. In Gilliam, the jury had been told that serious bodily injury resulting in death could satisfy the intent element—an incorrect interpretation that also occurred here. Just like in Gilliam, the inclusion of this erroneous instruction undermined the legal foundation for the indictment.
Grand Jury Confusion Highlights the Risks in Attempted Murder New Jersey Indictments
The Appellate Court found that the grand jury’s confusion—evidenced by multiple legal clarification requests—demonstrated the significant impact of the flawed instructions. This confusion was further exacerbated when the prosecutor reiterated the incorrect standard while discussing the elements of murder and attempted murder. Without clear and accurate instruction, the grand jury could not reliably determine whether Ramadan had the specific intent to kill.
Appellate Division Dismisses the Attempted Murder New Jersey Charge
Ultimately, the Appellate Division concluded that the misleading grand jury instructions fatally undermined the integrity of the attempted murder in New Jersey charge in the indictment. While the prosecutor did include the correct legal standard multiple times, the simultaneous inclusion of a legally incorrect alternative theory created a serious risk of misapplication. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s denial of Ramadan’s motion to dismiss the attempted murder charge.
Importantly, the decision does not prevent the State from re-presenting the charge to another grand jury with properly framed instructions.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways from the Attempted Murder New Jersey Ruling
This opinion clarifies that attempted murder in New Jersey requires a specific intent to cause the death of the victim, and any misstatement suggesting an alternative intent—such as to cause serious bodily injury—is not just legally incorrect, but potentially fatal to an indictment. The ruling reinforces the obligation of prosecutors to provide grand juries with precise and legally sound instructions, particularly when charging individuals with serious offenses like attempted murder.
Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.
No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.