State v. Cook
| Citation | 221 A.2d 212,47 N.J. 402 |
| Decision Date | 27 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. A--134,A--134 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James COOK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Roger H. McGlynn, Newark, for appellant (McGlynn, Stein & Eberiel, Newark, attorneys; Roger H. McGlynn Newark, on the brief).
Barry H. Evenchick, Asst. Prosecutor, for respondent (Brendan T. Byrne, Prosecutor of Essex County, attorney; Barry H. Evenchick and Andrew F. Zazzali, Jr., Asst. Prosecutors, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
An Essex County Grand Jury returned two murder indictments against the defendant, James Cook, the first charging him with killing Betty Hammonds on April 22, 1964, and the other charging him with killing Charlotte Hammonds on the same date. On the State's motion and over the defendant's objection the indictments were consolidated for trial. A jury in the County Court found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree on each indictment with a recommendation of life imprisonment. The trial judge sentenced the defendant to consecutive life terms in State Prison. Defendant appeals directly to this court as of right pursuant to R.R. 1:2--1(c). 1
The State's theory was that Cook, after being rebuffed by Louise Hammonds, the mother of Betty Hammonds, age 10, and Charlotte Hammonds, age 8, went to the Hammonds apartment and slashed the throats of the two children.
Louise Hammonds testified that Cook was her boy friend from 1959 until about three weeks before the murders, when she decided to stop going with him. Cook's apartment at 2 Cottage Street in Newark was just around the corner from the Hammonds apartment at 284 Mulberry Street, and despite the disagreement, Cook continued to be a frequent visitor at Louise's apartment.
In the late afternoon of April 21, 1964, Cook arrived at the Hammonds apartment where Louise, her brother Eligh Hammonds, and several friends were talking, drinking and listening to records. By about 9:30 P.M. everybody except Eligh, who was apparently supposed to act as a baby sitter, and the two children, who had been put to bed in separate rooms, had left the apartment. The evidence further shows that Cook, Louise Hammonds and several friends spent the next few hours drinking and socializing in two nearby taverns, the Tic Toc and the Dreamland. While Louise was at the Tic Toc she was asked by one Junior Simpson to join him for a ride with several others. According to Louise's testimony Cook overheard this invitation and said: She replied, Cook then said, Louise sent for her brother, Eligh, who came to the Tic Toc and agreed that it was all right for her to go out with Junior Simpson. She decided to go and testified that just before she got into the car Cook threatened: Simpson, Louise and the others drove off sometime before midnight and she did not return to 284 Mulberry Street until about 3:00 A.M., almost an hour and a half after the bodies of her two children were discovered. After Louise's departure, Cook apparently remained at the Tic Toc for about a half hour and then was not seen by any of the witnesses until he was arrested shortly after the murders.
The argument between Louise Hammonds and Cook and his subsequent threat were overheard by Eligh Hammonds and several other witnesses, all of whom corroborated Louise's testimony.
Eligh Hammonds testified that after he went to the Tic Toc at the request of his sister he returned to the apartment and found the children asleep. He then went back to the Tic Toc where he met Deborah Colvin, John Willie Williams and Marie Ann Streets. The testimony shows that at about 1:30 A.M. these four left the tavern and returned to 284 Mulberry Street. After entering the apartment Eligh found Charlotte Hammonds in bed with her throat cut. He ran to police headquarters, talked to the desk sergeant, and ran back to the apartment where he found the other child in the same condition.
The medical examiners found the deaths of the children were caused by a sharp cutting instrument which severed their jugular veins and carotid arteries. There was no evidence that either child was sexually molested. Both deaths were estimated to have occurred between 11:25 P.M. on April 21 and 1:25 A.M. on April 22.
Between 1:45 and 2:00 A.M. five members of the Newark Police Department arrived at the scene of the crimes. There they met Eligh Hammonds who identified himself as the uncle of the victims. The police asked Eligh if he knew who killed the children and he replied that James Cook was the only man mean enough to do something like that. He further told the police about the argument between Cook and Louise earlier in the evening and about Cook's threat. 2 Several of the police officers also knew that on at least two recent occasions Louise had complained to the police that she had been threatened by Cook, once with a baseball bat and once with a revolver.
After talking to Eligh all five officers immediately proceeded to 2 Cottage Street. The outer door to the building was locked. A tenant threw down a key and, after the police entered, directed them to Cook's apartment. They knocked, announced they were police officers, but received no response. The police testified that they then heard a scuffling inside and kicked in the door. Using flashlights they went through the darkened apartment to Cook's bedroom where they found him in bed. He was told that he was under arrest. Cook was covered by a blanket and was wearing shorts and an undershirt. His outer clothing was on a night table. One of the officers ordered Cook to get dressed and handed him his clothing. In doing so, he searched the trousers and found a black-handled folding knife in the back pocket. According to police testimony the knife blade was wet. They further testified that when Cook was asked to explain the wet knife he said that he had washed it after eating with it. It was established that Cook had borrowed this knife several months earlier from Constantine Jolas, who operated the Dreamland Tavern. Defendant admitted that he had possession of the knife and that he had borrowed it from Jolas.
Cook's hands were handcuffed behind his back and he was taken to the Hammonds apartment. While he was there one of the officers, Patrolman McCann, forcibly bent Cook over until his face was six inches from Betty Hammonds' body. Patrolman McCann testified as follows:
Sometime after 3:00 A.M. Cook was driven to Newark Police Headquarters where he was taken to the detective squad room on the third floor. He was questioned by a police detective but denied any complicity in the murder of the two children. He was then fingerprinted and, according to the State's witnesses, placed in a cell between 4:00 and 5:00 A.M.
On the following morning, April 22, Cook was given a sandwich and coffee for breakfast. At 8:00 A.M. he was taken from his cell and questioned again for about one hour and a half, during which time he continued to maintain his innocence. Prior to this interrogation Cook was told that he did not have to answer any questions unless he spoke to a lawyer, but Cook said he didn't need a lawyer because he had nothing to hide. The police testified that at 9:30 he was returned to his cell while written statements were obtained from the witnesses. At 11:10 A.M. Cook was removed from his cell and taken to the interrogation room. This room measures 9 14 . According to the State's witnesses he was questioned by three detectives. He was advised of his right to keep silent although he was not then told of his right to an attorney nor did he ask for one. At first he continued to assert his innocence, but after a half hour of questioning he admitted his guilt. He then agreed to accompany the police to the scene of the crimes and explain what had happened. At this time he was offered food but declined, asking instead for coffee and a cigar which were given to him. At about 1:45 P.M. Cook was taken to 284 Mulberry Street where the police said he detailed his commission of the killings including the return to his apartment at 2 Cottage Street.
Cook was returned to the interrogation room at about 2:15 P.M., where he began giving a written statement in the presence of a police lieutenant and two detectives. He was told by the lieutenant that he did not have to give a statement and that any statement he made could be used for or against him at any subsequent court proceeding. 3 Nobody then advised him of his right to an attorney nor did he ask for one. He was given food which he ate while answering questions.
Cook's statement was taken in question and answer form. The lieutenant testified that he would ask a question and after Cook's answer would proceed to type both the question and the answer. At 5:05 P.M. the five-page typewritten statement, which contained a detailed admission of guilt, was completed and signed on each page by Cook. The police testified that before signing Cook read the statement to himself for twenty minutes after which it was read aloud to him by one of the detectives. Near the end of the statement the following question and answer appear:
'Q. After reading tohe (Sic, the) statement and listening to this statement being read to you are there any changes or corrections you wish to make?
A. Yes.'
There were no changes or corrections made on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fariello
...consideration only of evidence admissible in a courtroom. E.g., State v. Burnett, supra, 42 N.J. at 387, 201 A.2d 39; State v. Cook, 47 N.J. 402, 414, 221 A.2d 212 (1966). Here the police had information from Dr. Norton and others that Fariello was one of the occupants of premises on which ......
-
State v. Gerald
...the record "must be 'wide and penetrating' to assure that the fundamental fairness requirement of due process is met." State v. Cook, 47 N.J. 402, 416, 221 A.2d 212 (1966) (quoting State v. Smith, 32 N.J. 501, 544, 161 A.2d 520 (1960), cert. den., 364 U.S. 936, 81 S.Ct. 383, 5 L.Ed.2d 367 (......
-
State v. Smith
...v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631, 654, 628 A.2d 735 (1993); State v. Franklin, 52 N.J. 386, 402-03, 245 A.2d 356 (1968); State v. Cook, 47 N.J. 402, 415, 221 A.2d 212 (1966). The Law Division's findings in that respect are supported by substantial, credible evidence. State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146,......
-
State v. Carter
...form, the evidence was poorly prepared. See State in the Interest of Carlo, 48 N.J. 224, 242, 225 A.2d 110 (1966); State v. Cook, 47 N.J. 402, 417--418, 221 A.2d 212 (1966); State v. Smith, 32 N.J. 501, 549--555, 161 A.2d 520 (1960), certiorari denied, 364 U.S. 936, 81 S.Ct. 383, 5 L.Ed.2d ......