State v. Hale

Decision Date07 July 1965
Docket NumberNo. A--138,A--138
Citation45 N.J. 255,212 A.2d 146
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Matthew James HALE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Salvatore J. Avena, Camden, for appellant (Joseph Pierce Lodge, Camden, on the brief).

Richard A. Koerner, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent (Arthur J. Sills, Atty. Gen., attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SCHETTINO, J.

Defendant, Matthew James Hale, Jr., was charged and tried for the murder of his wife on or about midnight May 28, 1961. The jury returned a verdict of guilty in the first degree with a recommendation of life imprisonment. In addition to the brief filed in this Court by his counsel, defendant has filed a brief Pro se.

The facts surrounding the murder are deduced from defendant's oral testimony at trial, his written confession (no objection to which was raised at trial) and the testimony of others to whom he stated the circumstances of the murder. No other person witnessed the incident.

On the morning of May 28, 1961 defendant had an argument with his wife about her manner of keeping house and his drinking. At lunch they apparently resolved their differences and made up. According to defendant there were no hostile feelings at dinner.

While they were eating dinner a neighbor called Hale and asked if he had any beer to spare. Hale replied that he did not, but that he would see if his brother, Pressley, did. He called Pressley, who informed him that he had some beer. Hale went to Pressley's home, got the beer, then when to the neighbor's house where he had three or four cans of beer and double shots of gin. Sometime later Hale received a call from his wife asking him to return home in order to watch television with the children.

Hale returned home between 9:30 and 9:40 P.M. and read a nursery rhyme to their three children and then they were taken to bed. He thereafter began working on a rifle which he had been coverting into a sporting gun, had some more beer and watched television. Meantime his wife was out in the kitchen cleaning up. She then went in to bathe.

Hale testified that he became quite depressed, wrote some letters and had the feeling he was going to commit suicide. The letters he wrote spoke of caring for the children in the future but made no mention of his wife's part in the future care of the children.

Defendant then left the living room, went into the bedroom, got a.22 caliber semiautomatic rifle, loaded it with 8 to 10 bullets and returned to the living room where he saw his wife lying on the couch. He walked over to his wife and told her he was going to shoot her. She replied: 'I think you will' or 'I know you will.' She then asked to see the children, but defendant said 'no.' She started walking toward the bedroom and defendant started shooting. Hale claimed he felt as if he were shooting at the wall and ceiling, and that he could only feel the gun going off but could not hear the shots. His wife reached the bedroom and shut the door. He stated that he tried to go into the bedroom but had to exert some force to push the door open, as his wife was lying on the floor and against the door. Hale lifted her onto the bed and covered her up.

Thereafter, defendant went to the kitchen, had another beer, washed up, changed his clothing, awakened the children and put them into the car. He took the youngest boy to the home of his brother, David, and the other boys to David's inlaws. He asked them to care for the children while he went to look for his wife, who, he said, had left after an argument.

Hale went to Pressley's home where he had a beer. He then went upstairs, got his mother and told his mother and brother that he had killed his wife. Pressley thereupon called Ernest Sever, an attorney and friend, and asked him to come over at once. When Sever arrived he was told of the crime. Pressley testified that they called Sever for 'legal advice.' He advised them to have a doctor go to the Hale residence. Sever said that after talking about 40--45 minutes, he accompanied defendant and David to the Edgewater Park State Police Barracks, where defendant turned himself in to the police.

Sever also testified that when he first saw defendant, defendant seemed to be somewhat under the influence of alcoholic beverages but defendant was not in a condition which would meet the definition of 'drunk' as required for a conviction for drunken driving. Sever also stated that while he was at Pressley's home, defendant consumed 'one bottle of beer and an undetermined amount of blended whiskey.' During the trip to the State Police Barracks Hale was upset, crying and at times rather incoherent, but according to Sever, 'there was no doubt that defendant knew that he killed his wife.'

After surrendering himself to the State Police defendant was interviewed in David's presence by the chief of the Burlington County detectives. The chief testified that Hale readily admitted his guilt. The chief suggested that he call defendant's pastor who was also the chief's pastor. Defendant told the chief that he would like to talk to the pastor. When they were unable to reach the pastor by telephone, David was sent to get him. Meanwhile defendant was taken to Burlington City Police Headquarters in Burlington. Sandwiches and coffee were brought for defendant, but he declined them. The pastor arrived at the headquarters and talked with defendant for a short period of time.

Thereafter, defendant was taken to the county detective office where a formal statement was taken in the presence of two other detectives and a female stenographer. Before the interrogation was started defendant was formally warned by the chief of his constitutional right to remain silent. The statement was begun at 5:45 A.M. and completed at 6:20 A.M. The statement was later transcribed and defendant signed it at 2:00 P.M.

After giving the statement, defendant was taken back to the Burlington City Police Headquarters. At 5:00 P.M. a preliminary hearing was held in the Burlington City Magistrate's Court. Defendant was held over for action of the grand jury which later returned an indictment for murder under N.J.S. 2A:113--1, 2, N.J.S.A.

The defense did not contest the fact that Hale shot his wife. Defendant so confessed and testified on the stand. And Pressley recounted how defendant had admitted the crime to him shortly after arrival at his home. The basic defense was insanity. A corollary endeavor by defendant was an attempt to show that there was no basis for a finding of guilty of murder in the first degree.

The prosecution's theory of premeditation and deliberation was as follows. Defendant's letters written shortly before the murder left his possessions to his brother, instructed his brother to care for the children, made no mention of his wife and thus an inference could be drawn that defendant was at that time contemplating the murder of his wife. Moreover, the State submitted defendant's statement which contained his recital that he never kept a gun loaded, and therefore, had taken time out to go into another room to get the gun and to put 8 to 10 shells in the murder weapon. He then returned to the living room to shoot his wife.

Additionally, the State offered the following theory as to the actual sequence of firing of the shots. The first bullet struck her through the cheek as she was leaving the living room and entering the bedroom; the second bullet penetrated the bedroom door and struck her in the brain as she leaned with her back against the bedroom door and, as to the final shot, it was fired into the victim by defendant in the bedroom as he stood over her.

Medical testimony was introduced at trial by the State showing that decedent was struck by three bullets; one, through the left check, which broke the fourth and fifth upper teeth; the second, behind the right ear, which did serious damage to the base of the brain and the last, extended downward and medially from the left shoulder. According to the medical examiner the bullet which entered the base of the brain severed the medulla connections and put an end to all voluntary movement so that the victim 'would drop like a rock.' As to the wound to the shoulder, he stated it had to have been inflicted while she was on the floor with defendant standing over her for otherwise 'it would have to be fired about the height of the ceiling if she were erect.' Hale specifically denied shooting his wife as she lay on the bedroom floor but conceded that he had fired a shot through the bedroom door.

When the defense indicated that blood was found only in the bedroom and not in the living room where the first shooting allegedly took place, the medical examiner stated that the first and third wounds could have been received without blood appearing on the floor, and that decedent could have continued running following the wound first inflicted.

The defense introduced testimony concerning Hale's background aimed at showing defendant's inability to commit the crime because he was insane at the time of the crime (cf. State v. DiPaolo, 34 N.J. 279 (1961) cert. denied 368 U.S. 880, 7 L.Ed.2d 80 (1961)) and on the issue of punishment. Cf. State v. Mount, 30 N.J. 195, 152 A.2d 343 (1959). Hale had been in trouble at an early age as a result of breaking into a school and a church. He began drinking alcohol in his teens. Hale never finished high school, enlisting in the Marines following his third year. Although he served with some distinction in Korea, he was twice absent without leave when not on combat duty. While he was able to hold a job on his return from service, he continued his excessive drinking habit. He talked of ending his life; on one occasion, slashed his wrist, while on another, threatened to shoot himself. Besides threatening to do harm to himself, he threatened Pressley, a paraplegic, and discussed robbing two business establishments.

On...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Branch
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 4, 1997
    ...v. Wilbely, 63 N.J. 420, 422, 307 A.2d 608 (1973) (citing State v. Council, 49 N.J. 341, 342, 230 A.2d 383 (1967); State v. Hale, 45 N.J. 255, 263-65, 212 A.2d 146 (1965)). The charge may be satisfactory where the "the trial judge succeeded in communicating the law to the jury, although adm......
  • State v. Coleman
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1965
    ...not at all prejudicial and that the trial court did not exceed its discretionary authority in admitting them. See State v. Hale, 45 N.J. 255, 262--263, 212 A.2d 146 (1965); State v. Bucanis, 26 N.J. 45, 52--55, 138 A.2d 739, 73 A.L.R.2d 760, cert. denied, 357 U.S. 910, 78 S.Ct. 1157, 2 L.Ed......
  • State v. Laws
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • September 25, 1967
    ...themselves to alleged errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury. The charge must be read in its entirety (State v. Hale, 45 N.J. 255, 264, 212 A.2d 146, (1965), appeal dismissed, 384 U.S. 884, 86 S.Ct. 1981, 16 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1966)) and, as thus read, it fairly set forth the controlling......
  • State v. Conklin
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1969
    ...State v. Smith, 32 N.J. 501, 525, 161 A.2d 520 (1960), cert. den., 364 U.S. 936, 81 S.Ct. 383, 5 L.Ed.2d 367 (1961); State v. Hale, 45 N.J. 255, 262, 212 A.2d 146 (1965), appeal dismissed, 384 U.S. 884, 86 S.Ct. 1981, 16 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1966); State v. Coleman, 46 N.J. 16, 26, 214 A.2d 393, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT