State v. Holley

Decision Date10 January 1961
Docket NumberNo. A--62,A--62
Citation166 A.2d 758,34 N.J. 9
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mark S. HOLLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Brendan T. Byrne, County Pros. of Essex County, Newark, for plaintiff- respondent (C. William Caruso, Sp. Legal Asst. Pros., Newark, of counsel and on the brief.)

Sam Weiss, Newark, for defendant-appellant (Julius Fielo, attorney.)

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FRANCIS, J.

Defendant Mark S. Holley was convicted of murder in the first degree and upon the recommendation of the jury was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals directly to this court as of right, R.R. 1:2--1(c), alleging as ground for reversal error in the admission of evidence at the trial.

It appears without dispute that on October 25, 1959, at about 10:30 a.m., at 50 Richmond Street, Newark, defendant shot and killed Samuel Baker. The State contended at the trial of the indictment arising therefrom that the killing was fillful, deliberate and premeditated and so constituted murder in the first degree.

The State proved that in the early morning of October 25, 1959 Holley sold Baker a wrist watch for $2. Baker was a helper on the truck of the neighborhood ice dealer. Holley knew him casually and the sale arose through a chance meeting on the street. Very shortly thereafter, Baker discovered that the watch was not in working condition and he returned to the site of the purchase where he looked unsuccessfully for the seller. A few hours later, just prior to 10:30 a.m., while engaged in his work on the ice truck Baker saw Holley in the vicinity of 50 Richmond Street where he (Holley) lived with his wife and seven children. Baker called to him and started toward him apparently to reclaim the purchase price and to return the watch. Holley ran to 50 Richmond Street and entered the building.

50 Richmond Street is a three-story apartment house. Upon entering the premises Holly went to the third floor where he lived, took a 12-gauge shotgun from under his bed, loaded it, went into the hallway and took a position at the top of the stairway. Baker, who had reached the second floor by that time, started up the stairs. He had mounted two steps when Holley (according to his statement to the police) pointed the shotgun and told him to go away. Baker allegedly said: 'Come on down, I'm gonna kill you.' Thereupon Holley fired the fatal shot.

The homicide took place at about 10:30 a.m. The police appeared on the scene in about 20 minutes and found the body at the foot of the stairway. A search located the gun and the expended shell. Pictures were taken of the deceased and the stairway and immediate area, both before and after the body was removed. Thereafter, until about 2 p.m., various police officers and detectives were at the scene investigating the matter. No weapon of any kind, other than the shotgun, was discovered on the stairway or landings, or in the hallway.

In the evening of the same day the police returned to the premises in response to a telephone call from Willie Frank Jordan, a relative by marriage of the decedent or his wife. On arrival, Jordan pointed out to them an ice pick on the third step of the stairway leading from the second to the third floor (according to the officers) or 'right at the second floor landing' (according to Jordan). Jordan said that defendant's wife had pointed it out to him as they were descending the stairs and he then called the police. The pick was taken to the police precinct. This was about 11 hours after the shooting.

The following day Holley gave the detectives a signed statement about the killing, which was admitted in evidence. It contains no assertion that decedent had an ice pick in his hand at the time of the shooting. These detectives were cross-examined vigorously as to whether defendant had not told them Baker was carrying an ice pick in his right hand when shot.

The State was aware from the post-event ice pick incident and from pretrial maneuvers that Holley would claim self-defense at the trial. And in fact, when defense counsel opened to the jury, he announced that he would prove that, after threatening Holley, Baker had started up the stairs toward him with an ice pick in his hand.

As the State's case unfolded, the various police officer and detective witnesses, who were first on the scene of the crime and who were called to the stand prior to Jordan, were examined without objection by both the prosecutor and defense counsel about the ice pick, the asserted failure of the police to find it, and the thoroughness of their search at the place where the body was found. Decedent's employer also appeared as a State's witness prior to Jordan. He testified that when Baker left the ice truck to go after Holley he did not have an ice pick with him. Obviously both parties were aware of the potency of the pick as a factor in defendant's claim of self-defense. It was equally obvious from the interrogations, both direct and cross, that the State in anticipation of the claim of self-defense (which had been asserted in counsel's opening to the jury) was endeavoring to establish that if decedent had been in possession of an ice pick it would have been found near the body, and that the defense was endeavoring to suggest or to give the impression that if the police search had been thorough the pick would have been discovered.

All of the witnesses who furnished the evidence detailed above, with the exception of the officer who received the telephone call from Jordan and who in response thereto went to 50 Richmond Street, and those who testified about defendant's statement the day following the shooting, preceded Jordan to the witness stand. Thus the order of the State's proof shows that the course being pursued was establishment of the chronological sequence of events leading up to the bringing of the ice pick to the attention of the police.

When Jordan was called to testify, the criminal incident in its totality was being developed in its natural sequence. The State had the pick in its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Stefanelli
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 10 Enero 1979
    ...also firmly establish that the State had a right on direct examination to disclose Cicala's guilty plea to the jury. In State v. Holley, 34 N.J. 9, 166 A.2d 758, Cert. den. 368 U.S. 854, 82 S.Ct. 89, 7 L.Ed.2d 51 (1961), Justice Francis The law is settled in this jurisdiction that either pa......
  • State v. Driver
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 19 Julio 1962
    ...New Jersey State Prison. That was proper but only for the purpose of affecting credibility. N.J.S. 2A:81--12, N.J.S.A.; State v. Holley, 34 N.J. 9, 166 A.2d 758 (1961). In summation, the Assistant Prosecutor described Driver variously as 'a hardened criminal; * * * a graduate of that school......
  • State v. Laws
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 25 Septiembre 1967
    ... ... If he had been an adult, his record of conviction could, of course, have been introduced on cross-examination to attack his credibility. N.J.S. 2A:81--12, N.J.S.A. It could also have been introduced on direct examination by the State. State v. Holley, 34 N.J ... Page 179 ... 9, 13, 166 A.2d 758, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 854, 82 S.Ct. 89, 7 L.Ed.2d 51 (1961); State v. Fox, 12 N.J.Super. 132, 139, 79 A.2d 76 (App.Div.1951). But the clear legislative policy is that adjudication of juvenile offenses should not be viewed as criminal convictions ... ...
  • State v. Hawthorne
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 27 Marzo 1967
    ...L.J., supra, at pp. 774--78; Note, 'Procedural Protections of the Criminal Defendant,' 78 Harv.L.Rev. 426, 441 (1964); cf. State v. Holley, 34 N.J. 9, 14, 166 A.2d 758, certiorari denied 368 U.S. 854, 82 S.Ct. 89, 7 L.Ed.2d 51 (1961); State v. Brown, 41 N.J. 590, 591--592, 198 A.2d 441, cer......
  • 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