State v. Leak
| Decision Date | 06 May 1974 |
| Citation | 128 N.J.Super. 212,319 A.2d 740 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Herman LEAK and Wesley J. Adams, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Susan T. Sinins, Asst. Deputy Public Defender, for defendants-appellants (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).
Marc J. Friedman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent, William F. Hyland, Atty. Gen., attorney (George F. Kugler, Jr., former Atty. Gen.)
Before Judges CONFORD, HANDLER and MEANOR.
Defendants were convicted of armed robbery. The alleged victim testified that he was assaulted from the rear on a street by a group of young people, two males and two females. They took his wallet, containing $90, and $7.10 from a trouser pocket. They ran away when a patrol car arrived on the scene. Defendants were apprehended shortly thereafter, Adams separately from Leak. The victim, one Zisa, identified them both in court. He identified Leak and one of the women out of court. His money and wallet were returned to him by the police shortly after the arrests.
Defendant Leak denied the robbery. Codefendant Linda Logan (not a party to this appeal) testified, and was substantially corroborated by the testimony of Leak, that she had an engagement to meet Leak at the Old Rail Bar. While she awaited him Zisa accosted her but she ignored him. Later Leak arrived, stayed awhile, and departed. Logan left to seek a ride home. Zisa accosted her again and touched her arm. Leak reappeared, and Logan told him of Zisa's approach. An argument ensued between the men, and when Zisa reached into his pocket Leak punched him. Shortly thereafter the police arrived and arrested them. They said Adams was not involved in the episode. Leak testified he ran away because he was on parole from Yardville.
Adams testified he was not involved in the robbery at all. He was walking home from a bus terminal when he stopped to urinate in the bushes. A police officer came upon him and threatened to kill him if he moved. Adams has an extensive criminal record.
Defendants appeal on a wide assortment of grounds: (1) testimony regarding Adams' ownership of a watch found at the scene was in violation of the Miranda rule and prejudicial; (2) the court's charge on flight was erroneous and prejudicial; (3) abuse of discretion in permitting Officer Brown's testimony to be read to the jury; (4) the sentence of defendant Adams was excessive; (5) the court erred in answering the jury's question concerning the identification of the watch; (6) abuse of discretion in permitting the victim's wallet to be introduced in evidence; (7) abuse of discretion in not ordering a mistrial and a severance of the defendants, and (8) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Of these grounds, we deem only the first and second to warrant discussion in this opinion.
Officer Brown testified that in searching the environs of the assault the following morning he discovered a wrist watch. The watch was marked for identification as an exhibit. The officer was asked whether he ever ascertained the ownership of the watch and responded that he did. He was asked how he went about that, and said: 'I took the watch to the cellblock and spoke to Mr. Adams and asked him if that was his watch.' At that point the defense made an objection, and the court proceeded to conduct a Miranda voir dire out of the presence of the jury. At its conclusion the court excluded any further interrogation on the subject of the watch on Miranda grounds. Defense counsel expressed no objection to the court concerning the prejudicial effect of the interrogation prior to the Voir dire nor did he move to strike it.
During the course of the jury's deliberations they requested a reading of Officer Brown's testimony, and this was done over the objection of Adams' counsel. Two hours later the jury sent a question to the judge: 'Did Wesley Adams identify the watch as being his?' With the express approval of Adams' counsel the court instructed the jury that the watch was not in evidence and that any testimony with respect to the identity of the watch must be stricken from their consideration.
Adams now contends that the circumstances surrounding the original adduction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gaines
...guilty of possession of heroin. See State v. Bozeyowski, supra, 77 N.J.Super. at 58, 185 A.2d 393. See also, State v. Leak, 128 N.J.Super. 212, 216--217, 319 A.2d 740 (App.Div.1974), certif. den. 65 N.J. 565, 325 A.2d 699 (1974); State v. Petrolia, 45 N.J.Super. 230, 233, 132 A.2d 311 (App.......
-
State v. Mann
...it should not draw any inference of the defendant's consciousness of guilt from the defendant's departure. State v. Leak, 128 N.J.Super. 212, 217, 319 A.2d 740 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 65 N.J. 565, 325 A.2d 699 Like evidence of flight, evidence of a defendant's suicide attempt that follo......
-
State v. McCaffrey
...the defendants for his or her flight . . . , they should not draw any inference relative to guilt against such defendant." 128 N.J. Super. 212, 217 (App. Div. 1974). However, "on the case as a whole," we concluded that the charge had no "prejudicial effect" to warrant reversal of the convic......
-
State v. Blecker
...Where a portion of the request is erroneous, the trial judge is warranted in rejecting the whole. State v. Leak, 128 N.J.Super. 212, 216, 319 A.2d 740 (App.Div.1974), certif. den. 65 N.J. 565, 325 A.2d 699 There is no doubt in this case that defendants sold allegedly obscene material to a p......