State v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 06 May 1969 |
| Citation | 54 N.J. 37,252 A.2d 726 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jerome W. GARDNER, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dwight MASON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Dino D. Bliablias, Newark, for defendant-appellant Jerome W. Gardner (Dino D. Bliablias, Newark, on the brief, Stein, Bliablias & Goldman, Newark, attorneys).
Joseph A. Hayden, Newark, for defendant-appellant Dwight Mason.
Donald Coburn, Asst. Prosecutor, for plaintiff-respondent (Robert A. Baime, Asst. Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief, Joseph P. Lordi, Prosecutor of Essex County, attorney).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
These are direct appeals by defendants Jerome Gardner and Dwight Mason who, along with Franklin D. Gilchrist, were tried jointly on indictments for murder. On November 7, 1966, the jury returned verdicts finding defendants Gardner and Mason guilty of murder in the second degree, and each was sentenced to a term of 25--30 years in the New Jersey State Prison. Gilchrist received a sentence of 20--25 years on his Non vult plea entered during trial.
We have examined the numerous issues raised by Gardner and Mason on this appeal and find them without merit. We find it necessary to discuss only three of the contentions in which defendants allege reversible error: (1) the failure to follow the procedural guidelines of State v. Young, 46 N.J. 152, 215 A.2d 352 (1965), where an oral out-of-court statement by one co-defendant is to be used in a joint trial; (2) the use in a joint trial of evidence admissible against one defendant (Mason) but inadmissible against the others; and (3) the denial of a motion for mistrial following the Non vult plea of one of the codefendants (Gilchrist) who thereafter testified for the State.
We refer to the testimony on behalf of the State. On the evening of October 31, 1965, Franklin Gilchrist (stepson of the deceased), his wife Caroline, and his mother Dorothy Hill (wife of the deceased) met Thurlow Hill (the deceased) in a local tavern. After spending some time bar-hopping, Gilchrist, Caroline and Mrs. Hill 'ditched' Hill, and returned to Gilchrist's apartment. Hill arrived at the apartment somewhat later, but was denied entrance because of an argument between himself and Mrs. Hill.
Subsequently, Gilchrist learned that his stepfather was threatening to call the police about a series of robberies in which Gilchrist, Gardner and Mason allegedly had been involved. When Hill again said he was going to the police, Gilchrist went to Mason's house and informed him of the threats which Hill had made. Gilchrist told Mason to bring his 'piece' (gun), and the two returned to the apartment. In Mason's presence, Hill again threatened to inform the police.
Gilchrist, Mason and Hill left the apartment in Mrs. Hill's car and drove to Gardner's apartment, where Gardner was told of Hill's intention to go to the police. Gardner got in the car with the other men, and after driving for some time, during which time the defendants tried to dissuade Hill from going to the police, Gardner finally said, 'I guess we have to take him out.' Gilchrist then heard two clicks, and turned to see Gardner holding what appeared to be a .32 revolver which Gilchrist and Mason had purchased in Virginia. Gardner then asked Mason for his 'piece,' and immediately thereafter three shots were heard by Gilchrist. Gilchrist then drove to Keasby, N.J., where the trio disposed of the body.
Upon returning to Newark, Gilchrist dropped Gardner off at his apartment and returned to his own apartment with Mason. At the apartment Mrs. Hill observed blood on Mason's trousers. The next morning Gardner and Gilchrist attempted to remove blood stains from the car, and when their efforts were only partially successful they abandoned the car in New Brunswick. Gilchrist, Mason and Mrs. Hill retrieved the car the next day.
Four days later, the body of Thurlow Hill was discovered in Keasby. Gilchrist was picked up on November 8, 1965, and questioned about the death of his stepfather. On the basis of information supplied by him, Mason and Gardner were arrested, and search warrants were obtained authorizing the police to search the apartments of Gardner and Mason. The ensuing searches uncovered ammunition, a .38 caliber gun, and some money from Mason's home, and ammunition, .32 and .38 caliber guns, and some money from Gardner's home.
Because of the extent of distortion in the bullets which killed Hill, a ballistics comparison was not possible. The bullets were identified as .38 caliber slugs, however, and the State did succeed in demonstrating that the .32 caliber gun had recently misfired.
Much of the testimony was supplied by Franklin D. Gilchrist. The events leading up to his testimony began shortly after commencement of the trial when the State sought to introduce Oral admissions made to the police by each of the defendants. The trial was interrupted, and a lengthy Miranda hearing outside the presence of the jury was begun. This hearing culminated in the exclusion of only those out-of-court statements made by defendants Gardner and Mason.
When the trial resumed, the State introduced testimony on the oral admissions made by Gilchrist. Thereafter, in exchange for promises that his sentence would not exceed that for second degree murder and that the prosecutor would move to dismiss eight armed-robbery indictments pending against him, Gilchrist entered a plea of Non vult and promised to testify for the State in accordance with the statement he had given to the police. The court cautioned the jury that Gilchrist's plea was not to be considered in any way as evidence against the remaining defendants. Subsequently, Gilchrist appeared as a State's witness and testified against the two remaining defendants. During his testimony the court disclosed to the jury the various promises made in connection with the Non vult plea. This disclosure followed a discussion at the side bar out of the hearing of the jury where it was agreed that the record of what transpired in connection with Gilchrist's plea should be read to the jury.
As a result of a letter sent by the prosecutor to the court and defense counsel indicating that the written admissions of the defendants would not be used at the trial, no pretrial Young hearing had been ordered by the court. That letter did not refer to the oral admissions ostensibly on the ground that the Young rationale applies only to written admissions. Young applies to oral as well as written statements. Indeed there may be added difficulty in assuring effection deletion of implicating passages where oral admissions are involved, Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, 484 n. 10, 490 (1968). We have no doubt, however, that the pretrial procedures set out in Young must be followed where an oral out-of-court statement is to be offered in evidence at the trial. Two of the cases cited in Young supporting the conclusion that effective deletion of implicating portions is necessary involved oral admissions. Kramer v. United States, 317 F.2d 114 (D.C. Cir. 1963); People v. Aranda, 63 Cal.2d 518, 47 Cal.Rptr. 353, 407 P.2d 265 (1965). And see United States v. Lipowitz, 4 Crim.L.Rptr. 2451 (3d Cir. Feb. 20, 1969) ().
In State v. Young, Supra, 46 N.J. 152, 215 A.2d 352, we established the procedure to be followed in a joint trial where the State intends to introduce a defendant's confession which implicates his codefendants. We noted that all resulting problems should be resolved prior to trial, and that the prosecutor must move
* * *' 46 N.J. at 159, 215 A.2d at 356.
Since our decision in Young, the United States Supreme Court has decided Bruton v. United States, Supra, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, reaffirming our stated belief that cautionary instructions are incapable of obviating the potentiality for prejudice inherent in untested out-of-court statements. State v. Young, Supra, 46 N.J. at 157, 215 A.2d 352. In so doing, the Supreme Court expressly overruled the earlier rule which had allowed the use of confessions without deletions in joint trials if the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Muniz
...... State v. Manney, 26 N.J. 362, 368, 140 A.2d 74 (1958); see, e.g., State v. Freeman, 64 N.J. 66, 68-69, 312 A.2d 143 (1973) (in joint trial, danger of guilt by association alleviated by instruction to consider each defendant's guilt separately); State v. Gardner, 54 N.J. 37, 46, 252 A.2d 726 . Page 333 . (1969) (where a co-defendant changes plea to guilty during joint trial, instruction on the impact on remaining defendants sufficient). Juries have been asked to apply instructions posing greater intellectual challenges than presented by our decision in ......
-
State v. Brown
...... 1 We have recognized often that a jury can be adequately instructed with respect to conflicts among parties and can understand and apply the correct burdens of proof. See, e.g., State v. Freeman, sua,[573 A.2d 893] 64 N.J. at 68-69, 312 A.2d 143; State v. Gardner, 54 N.J. 37, 46, 252 A.2d 726 (1969). This occurred here. We are thus not persuaded that there was jury confusion that deprived defendants of a fair trial. . In sum, we determine that the defenses posed by defendants were neither irreconcilable nor mutually exclusive. Further, ......
-
State v. Boratto
...... An extrajudicial confession is never admissible [404 A.2d 608] in a joint trial unless all aspects implicating a defendant other than the declarant can be effectively excised and withheld from the jury. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); State v. Gardner, 54 N.J. 37, 252 A.2d 726 (1969); State v. Barnett, 53 N.J. 559, 252 A.2d 33 (1969); State v. Young, 46 N.J. 152, 215 A.2d 352 (1965). There was simply no deletion of those portions of Boratto's grand jury testimony inculpating Silverman. Indeed, not only was there no attempt to purge Boratto's ......
-
State v. Anderson
......Barnett,[285 A.2d 240] 53 N.J. 559, 564--565, 252 A.2d 33 (1969); State v. Broxton, 49 N.J. 373, 377, 230 A.2d 489 (1967); R. 3:15--2(a). Cf. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). This rule applies to oral as well as written statements. State v. Gardner, 54 N.J. 37, 42, 252 A.2d 726 (1969). . The purpose of the rule is to prevent the substantial risk that the jury may look to the incriminating, inculpating extrajudicial statements in determining a cofendant's guilt, thus effectively denying defendant's Sixth Amendment right to ......