State v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 05 March 1997 |
| Citation | 148 N.J. 89,690 A.2d 1 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert O. MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................. 23
II. THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, THE CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT ACT, AND HABEAS CORPUS ...................................... 27
III. LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING DEFENDANT'S CLAIMS ............................. 33
IV. THE MERITS OF DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ............ 35
A. ALLEGED ERRORS RELATING TO THE TESTIMONY OF BILLY WAYNE
MCKINNON ........................................................ 35
1. McKinnon's Plea Agreement ................................... 36
2. Other Claims Relating to McKinnon's Credibility ............. 38
3. McKinnon's Telephone Call to Robert Cumber .................. 42
4. Impact on the Penalty Phase ................................. 42
B. ALLEGED ERRORS RELATING TO DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR RUSSELL
KOLINS .......................................................... 42
C. ALLEGED ERRORS RELATING TO THE 'SUICIDE TAPE' AND ITEMS
SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT'S MOTEL ROOM .............................. 47
1. Claims Based on Evidence Relevant to Whether the Tape
Should Have Been Suppressed on the Ground That It
Was Improperly Seized ..................................... 47
2. Claims Based on Evidence Relevant to Whether the Tape
Should Have Been Suppressed on the Ground That It
Was Subject to the Attorney-Client Communication
Privilege ................................................. 51
3. Claims Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in
Connection With the 'Suicide Tape' and the Items
Seized at the Best Western Motel .......................... 54
4. Miscellaneous Claims Associated with the 'Suicide
Tape' and Items Seized at the Best Western Motel .......... 55
D. CLAIMS RELATING TO SARANN KRAUSHAAR ............................. 56
E. ALLEGED ERRORS THAT PRECLUDED THE DEFENSE FROM UTILIZING THE
CRIME SCENE TO PORTRAY DEFENDANT AS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME ....... 59
1. In General .................................................. 59
2. The Tire .................................................... 59
3. Counsel's Failure to Elicit on Cross-Examination the
Consistent Statements Made by Defendant to Various
Police Officers About the Problems He Experienced
with His Car .............................................. 60
4. Position of Body and Ballistics ............................. 61
5. Stopping in the Oyster Creek Picnic Area .................... 62
6. Defendant's Injuries and Treatment .......................... 62
7. Defendant's Demeanor ........................................ 63
8. The Jewelry ................................................. 63
F. ALLEGED ERRORS THAT PRECLUDED THE DEFENSE FROM DEMONSTRATING
THAT NEITHER DEFENDANT'S DEBT NOR INSURANCE POLICIES ON
THE VICTIM'S LIFE WERE MOTIVES FOR MURDER ....................... 63
1. Debt ........................................................ 63
2. Victim's Life Insurance Policies ............................ 65
G. ALLEGED INFRINGEMENTS ON DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO RETAIN COUNSEL ...... 67
H. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF DEFENDANT'S MIRANDA RIGHTS .................. 69
I. CLAIMS RELATING TO THE INTEGRITY OF THE IMPANELED JURY ............ 69
J. MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT .................. 72
K. TRIAL COUNSEL'S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
CORROBORATING DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY ............................. 73
L. ALLEGED ERRORS INVOLVING THE USE OF SEARCH WARRANTS ............... 76
M. ALLEGED ERRORS IN THE JURY CHARGE ................................. 77
N. CLAIMS INVOLVING THE RELIABILITY OF THE PENALTY-PHASE
PROCEEDING ...................................................... 78
O. ALLEGED MISCELLANEOUS DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS ........................ 85
P. ALLEGED MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL ......................................................... 87
Q. CLAIMS ALLEGING THAT THE DEATH-PENALTY STATUTE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT THE APPELLATE DEATH-PENALTY
PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CAPITAL CASE HAVE BEEN INADEQUATE AND
UNRELIABLE ...................................................... 88
R. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS ................................... 90
V. CLAIMS INVOLVING THE FAIRNESS OF THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
PROCEEDINGS ............................................................ 90
A. DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE STATE'S FILES ............................. 90
B. THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF COURT'S DECISION NOT TO
DISQUALIFY ITSELF ............................................... 94
C. DENIAL OF DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT TO INTERVIEW THE TRIAL JURORS ....... 96
D. REFUSAL TO PERMIT RECONSTRUCTION AND SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE
TRIAL RECORD .................................................... 97
E. REFUSAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL TO TALK TO THE DEFENSE ....... 98
F. MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS THAT THE POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
PROCEEDINGS WERE UNFAIR ......................................... 99
VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................... 99
Defendant, Robert Marshall, was tried before a jury and convicted of murdering and conspiring to murder his wife, Maria Marshall. After a penalty-phase hearing, defendant was sentenced to death. This Court upheld the convictions and sentence, 123 N.J. 1, 586 A.2d 85 (1991), and concluded that defendant's death sentence is not disproportionate to the sentences imposed in similar cases. 130 N.J. 109, 613 A.2d 1059 (1992).
After obtaining a stay of execution from the Law Division, defendant filed with that court a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), see Rule 3:22-1, alleging more than 500 grounds for the reversal of his convictions and sentence. In an unreported opinion, the Law Division denied defendant's PCR application. Defendant appeals to this Court as of right, see Rule 2:2-1(a)(3), presenting to this Court the first PCR application by a defendant sentenced to death under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice.
A detailed recounting of the evidence adduced at defendant's guilt- and penalty-phase trials is set forth in our first Marshall opinion. See State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 586 A.2d 85 (1991) (Marshall I ), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 929, 113 S.Ct. 1306, 122 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993). We reproduce here "a general outline of the facts that the jury could have found as drawn from the State's brief," State v. Marshall, 130 N.J. 109, 120, 613 A.2d 1059 (1992) (Marshall II ), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 929, 113 S.Ct. 1306, 122 L.Ed.2d 694 (1993), to facilitate the reader's understanding of our disposition of this appeal.
Defendant, a Toms River insurance agent, began an extramarital affair with Sarann Kraushaar, a married woman, in June 1983. As early as December 1983, defendant mentioned to Kraushaar the idea of killing his wife, Maria. In May 1984, defendant met Robert Cumber of Louisiana and questioned him about hiring an "investigator." Defendant later telephoned Cumber, who referred defendant to Billy Wayne McKinnon, a former sheriff's officer from Louisiana. Defendant agreed to pay McKinnon $5,000 to meet him in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Defendant met McKinnon at Harrah's Casino in Atlantic City on June 18, 1984, and offered to pay him $65,000 to kill his wife. In addition to the $5,000 that McKinnon had already received, defendant agreed to pay him $10,000 up front and $50,000 from the expected insurance proceeds on his wife's life. At that meeting defendant paid McKinnon $7,000 and gave him a picture of his wife. Defendant told McKinnon to kill her that evening, when defendant would be present. In preparation for the killing, defendant and McKinnon discussed various ways to kill Maria. Defendant believed that he would not be considered a suspect because he was considered an outstanding citizen with influence in the community.
McKinnon did not carry out the murder at that time, but instead returned to Louisiana. Defendant communicated with him on numerous occasions and sent him additional money. Under pressure from defendant to complete the job, McKinnon returned to Atlantic City on July 19, 1984, and met with defendant, who proposed a second plan for the killing to take place that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. State
...courts have adopted a similar 'good-cause' or 'good-reason' standard for the postconviction discovery process. See [State v.] Marshall, [148 N.J. 89, 690 A.2d 1 (1997)]; State v. Lewis, 656 So.2d 1248 (Fla.1994); People ex rel. Daley v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill.2d 175, 121 Ill.Dec. 937, 526 N.E.......
-
Martini v. Hendricks, Civ. No. 99-4347 (WHW) (D. N.J. 2002)
... JOHN MARTINI, SR., Petitioner, ... ROY L. HENDRICKS, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, and JOHN L. FARMER, JR., Attorney General, State of New Jersey, Respondents ... Civ. No. 99-4347 (WHW) ... United States District ... at 269 (quoting Marshall III , 148 N.J. at 258). As discussed previously with regard to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court found that not only does this ... ...
- In re Twp. of Bordentown
-
Marshall v. Hendricks, Civil Action No. 97-5618 (JEI).
...in prior court decisions, see Marshall V, 307 F.3d at 44-48; Marshall IV, 103 F.Supp.2d at 758-59; State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 690 A.2d 1, 23-25 (1997) ("Marshall III"); State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 586 A.2d 85, 97-114 (1991) ("Marshall I"), therefore, the Court will relate only those......