State v. Burt
| Decision Date | 14 November 1969 |
| Citation | 107 N.J.Super. 390,258 A.2d 711 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edward A. BURT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Arthur Penn, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for appellant (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
I. Michael Heine, Asst. Prosecutor, for respondent (A. Donald Bigley, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney).
Before Judges SULLIVAN, CARTON and HALPERN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SULLIVAN, P.J.A.D.
Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree in the shooting death of Robert (Shorty) Owens. This appeal, prosecuted on his behalf, does not challenge the sufficiency and adequacy of the State's proofs. Rather, it is contended that numerous prejudicial trial errors were committed which deprived defendant of his right to a fair trial and require that the judgment of conviction be set aside and a new trial granted.
The State's witness Everline Adams testified that she was a long-time friend of Owens and on the day in question left her home in Philadelphia to visit him. When she arrived at Owens' home in Camden, she found Owens and defendant sitting at the dining room table. The three sat around the table for about an hour talking, drinking and listening to records.
Mrs. Adams then went to the bedroom on the second floor. While there she heard the sound of a scuffle, a groan and a shot from a gun. She heard another shot and heard someone fall to the floor. Defendant then came upstairs to the bedroom with a gun in his hand and told Mrs. Adams that he was going to kill her just like he killed Owens. After taking five dollars from her he raped her. He then forced her to accompany him to a car parked about three blocks away from the house. Defendant drove her around for a while and ultimately let her out at a bus station.
Later that same night a police officer of the Borough of Clementon, investigating a report of a broken window at premises of the Trio Tire Co., found defendant hiding in a stack of tires. A gun, later identified as the murder weapon, was in defendant's right front pocket.
Defendant's first point is that his constitutional right to remain silent was eroded by the following trial incident.
After the State had rested its case, the defendant took the witness stand in his own behalf and testified that the shooting death of Owens was accidental. His testimony was to the effect that he had been drinking with Owens, that an altercation developed, and that Owens took a gun out of his pocket and pointed it at defendant. While struggling with Owens in an effort to take the gun away from him, the gun was accidentally discharged twice and Owens was killed. On cross-examination, defendant was asked if he had ever told the police that the shooting was accidental to which he replied 'no sir.'
The following day counsel for defendant told the court that the foregoing cross-examination might have created the impression in the minds of the jury that defendant was under some obligation to say something to the police. He therefore asked the court to instruct the jury at that time that defendant had no obligation to tell the police anything.
In the colloquy which followed the court stated that the cross-examination was proper and that no curative instruction was needed. The trial judge said that in his charge to the jury at the end of the case, he would appropriately charge the jury that 'no burden exists upon the defendant.'
At the conclusion of the trial the prosecutor, in his summation, referred to the credibility of defendant's story as follows:
He never told the police he accidentally shot Shorty Owens, never, at least up until the time he was lodged in Camden County Jail, and yet he is here, sitting here today asking you to believe this story. If this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Agard v. Portuondo
...whether the story had been fabricated. State v. Kimbrough, 109 N.J.Super. 57, 67, 262 A.2d 232 (App.Div.1970); State v. Burt, 107 N.J.Super. 390, 393, 258 A.2d 711 (App.Div.1969), aff'd. o.b. 59 N.J. 156, 279 A.2d 850 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1047, 92 S.Ct. 728, 30 L.Ed.2d 735 (1972).......
-
State v. Deatore
...30 L.Ed.2d 735 (1972), which affirmed the Appellate Division for the reasons expressed in the latter's opinion reported in 107 N.J.Super. 390, 258 A.2d 711 (1969). The underlying circumstances were markedly different from those in the instant case and the opinion has to be read in the light......
-
People v. Russell
...upon any fact is given, there is a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination as to all other relevant facts. State v. Burt (1969), 107 N.J.Super. 390, 258 A.2d 711; Sharp v. United States (C.A. 5, 1969), 410 F.2d 969; May v. State (Miss., 1968), 211 So.2d 845; State v. Zappia (1969......
-
State v. Kimbrough
...the stand in his own defense he is thereby subjected to cross-examination as to the credibility of his story. State v. Burt, 107 N.J.Super. 390, 393, 258 A.2d 711 (App.Div.1969); and see Johnson v. United States, 318 U.S. 189, 195, 63 S.Ct. 549, 87 L.Ed. 704 (1942). Here, the rebuttal testi......