State v. Rios

Citation17 N.J. 572,112 A.2d 247
Decision Date07 March 1955
Docket NumberA--101,Nos. A--98,s. A--98
PartiesThe STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Felipe Nieves RIOS, alias Utita, Jose Cruz, alias Mayaree, Joaquin Rodriguez and Gabriel Vega, Defendants-Appellants. to
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Walter S. Anderson, Camden, argued the cause for appellant rios.

Albert E. Heal, Jr., Erlton, argued the cause for appellant Cruz.

Angelo A. DePersia, Camden, argued the cause for appellant Rodriguez.

Joseph T. Sherman, Camden, argued the cause for appellant Vega.

Mitchell H. Cohen, Camden County Prosecutor, Camden, argued the cause for the State.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WACHENFELD, J.

Early on the morning of February 18, 1954 two men walked briskly into the luncheonette located at 229 Linden Street, Camden, New Jersey. The owner and operator of the small restaurant, George Booris, 69 years of age, was in charge at the time. Seven patrons were present having breakfast. When Booris opened the cash register behind the counter, one of the men who had entered inserted a coin in the music machine and then stood blocking the door with his left hand on the knob, holding a gun.

Any doubt about the purpose of their visit was quickly dispelled by the curt announcement: 'We are going to take the money away from this old fool * * * Nobody go.' The other bellowed forth: 'Nobody move. This is a holdup.'

Booris was commanded to raise his hands, and, according to the overwhelming testimony, did so, although Rios, who was pointing a gun at him, denies it. Booris muttered: 'Why are you going to kill me? Take the money but do not kill me.' Despite his pitiful plea and his obedience to the command, Rios in cold blood shot him three times while he was standing within 10 or 12 inches of him.

When the owner was prostrate on the floor, Rios rifled his pockets, and he and Cruz, the other man, then emptied the contents of the cash register, containing $21, which was subsequently divided among the defendants, with the exception of Vega.

The victim was removed by the police to the Cooper Hospital in Camden. Emergency operations were performed but without avail. Three days after his admission, and on February 21, he died. The post-mortem examination and autopsy indicated there were 11 wounds altogether caused by bullets, two entering the back. The cause of death was attributed to multiple bullet wounds, shock and hemorrhage.

Intensive investigation by the police quickly revealed, and it was adequately established at the trial, that the plot to hold up and rob the luncheonette had been conceived months before its execution. The restaurant and its proprietor were known to Cruz and Vega, who frequented it on many occasions while Rodriguez was seen there two weeks before the commission of the offense.

A fellow countryman of the defendant and a friend of many years' standing testified that Vega, with whom he was sharing a room, informed him he intended to hold up the luncheonette and invited Calavira, the witness, to join in the enterprise. This conversation took place some two months before the holdup was actually effected.

On February 5, 1954 the same witness, together with the defendants Cruz, Rodriguez, and Vega, made a trip to Chicago in an automobile owned by Rodriguez, and on the return route there was again a discussion concerning the holdup of the same place. All three defendants talked about it, agreeing to participate and to use Rodriguez' car. The witness testified: 'Gabby said that 229 Linden is good place to make a holdup because it was an old man and cash checks and got a lot of money in there,' while Cruz and Rodriguez were quoted as saying: 'They going to do the job.'

Following the Chicago incident, the same witness, Calavira, and Vega went to New York, where all four defendants met. On the Tuesday prior to the commission of the offense, Vega told him that further plans had been made by Cruz and Rodriguez, and Calavira was again invited to join the holdup, which he declined.

On the night preceding the event, after they had gone from Camden to New York, as hereinafter set forth, Vega visited the witness, Calavira, in his room and told him that Rodriguez and Cruz were waiting downstairs and he, together with Rodriguez and Cruz, was going to hold up the premises at 229 Linden Street with the use of Rodriguez' car and a car he was to operate. For the third time the witness was solicited to join the enterprise and he again refused.

Vega told Adolfo Flores, another witness for the State, on two occasions preceding the holdup that the proprietor of this luncheonette was a good prospect.

On Wednesday night, February 17, 1954, the three defendants, Rios, Cruz and Rodriguez, came to the City of Camden from New York in Rodriguez' automobile, a black Ford bearing Illinois license tags. Rios and Rodriguez were armed with guns and upon arriving in Camden all three immediately went to the luncheonette located at 229 Linden Street, where they met Vega. All the defendants were at the luncheonette as this time, and one of the State's witnesses overheard Cruz say to the other defendants: 'This guy, he got a lot of money; the old man got a lot of money; he cash checks for the customers * * * he is good for shooting.'

There were many witnesses who testified to the defendants' presence in the luncheonette on this occasion, and the evidence indicates that if the proprietor had been present the holdup would have been attempted. But he was not there, and accordingly it was planned to stage the robbery the following morning. Vega attempted to make arrangements for the sleeping accommodations of the other three defendants in the house in which he lived, but the owner 'threw' them out and refused them admittance to Vega's room.

Vega slept with Alonzo Suggs, despite the fact that he had his own apartment. At about 3 A.M. on the morning in question, Vega left the home of Suggs and returned to the location where the other three defendants were sleeping in Rodriguez' car under a railroad bridge in Camden. He then returned to Suggs' home and about 6 A.M. on the same morning left Suggs' room with Suggs' automobile, which was seen on the morning of the holdup about one-half block from the luncheonette. It was also seen later that morning being driven around the luncheonette about five minutes before the crime was committed.

Sometime between 7 and 8 A.M. the other three defendants, Rios, Cruz and Rodriguez, left the place where they had been sleeping and proceeded in Rodriguez' car to the luncheonette. It was agreed that if the victim arrived at his restaurant in his automobile he was to be held by Cruz and robbed by Rios and Rodriguez was to be waiting in his automobile with the motor running for the purpose of a get-away.

Booris, however, did not arrive as anticipated in his own car but instead came in a taxicab, apparently empty-handed. The plan accordingly was changed and Rios and Rodriguez entered the premises. Rodriguez gave a gun to Rios and they agreed he was to jump over the counter and grab the victim while Rios took the money. This plan, too, was abandoned and both defendants left the luncheonette and proceeded to the parked automobile, where Cruz was waiting.

The final plan agreed upon and executed resulted in Rios, preceded by Cruz, reentering the luncheonette, both armed with guns, where they completed the holdup and shot the proprietor, as already narrated.

The day following the holdup, Cruz, frequently referred to throughout the trial as Mayaree, and Rodriguez were apprehended in New York City and returned to Camden. On March 2, Vega, often called 'Gabby' during the trial, was arrested in the City of Camden and kept in custody. On April 5, Rios, referred to at times as Utita, was arrested in New York and returned to this State.

There is a conflict in the views of the different defendants as to many of the details and incidents as recited, but by and large the above is a fair re sume of the over-all picture of the factual developments as they occurred.

The facts as they relate to two of the defendants who claim the verdict was against the weight of the evidence will again be dwelt on when that issue is disposed of.

All four defendants were indicted for murder (of which more hereafter), tried and convicted, the jury returning a verdict of murder in the first degree as against the defendants Rios, Cruz and Rodriguez, without a recommendation, resulting in the imposition of the death penalty.

Vega was found guilty of murder in the first degree with a recommendation of life imprisonment at hard labor, and such sentence was accordingly imposed upon him.

All four defendants appeal, each represented by different counsel and each relying upon his separate oral argument and brief. The respective briefs raise a multitude of different points, some of which are common to all, others applicable only to a particular defendant. For the purposes of clarity and convenience, we shall group the objections raised under several broad headings as indicated hereafter. Point I.

Was there error in denying the motions for severance?

Prior to the commencement of the trial, the defendants Rios and Rodriguez moved for a severance of trial as to each of them, which motions were denied by the trial court. These defendants, and also the defendant Cruz, who did not make such a motion, assign error in the court's ruling. Rios' motion was predicated on the hypothesis that having fired the fatal shots, he would be prejudiced by the admission in evidence of statements or confessions of his co-defendants, who would naturally seek to magnify Rios' culpability while minimizing their own participation in the crime. It was urged that the prejudicial effect of this evidence could not be successfully overcome by any form of cautionary instructions the court might make to the jury and therefore Rios should be granted a separate trial.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • State v. S.J.C.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Abril 2022
    ...is to inform the defendant of the nature of the offense charged against him so he may adequately prepare his defense." State v. Rios, 17 N.J. 572, 603, 112 A.2d 247 (1955). As we recently observed in a case that did not involve child sexual assault allegations:[I]t has traditionally been th......
  • State v. Phelps
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 25 Junio 1984
    ...qualify for admissibility under the Rule. First, the statement must have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy. State v. Rios, 17 N.J. 572, 596, 112 A.2d 247 (1955). Second, the statement must have been made during the course of the conspiracy. State v. Carbone, 10 N.J. 329, 340, 91 A.......
  • State v. Ravenell
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 31 Julio 1964
    ...The court expunged references in the statement to Ravenell and admitted it will appropriate limiting instructions. See State v. Rios, 17 N.J. 572, 585, 112 A.2d 247 (1955); State v. Tassiello, 39 N.J. 282, 296--297, 188 A.2d 406 (1963); State v. Hall, 55 N.J.Super. 441, 451, 151 A.2d 1 (App......
  • State v. Mount, A--111
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 1959
    ...'is entitled to a trial before an impartial judge and an unprejudiced jury in an atmosphere of judicial calm' (cf. State v. Rios, 17 N.J. 572, 590, 112 A.2d 247 (1955)); that under the local statutes the trial judge could not express an opinion (cf. State v. Riley, 28 N.J. 188, 201, 145 A.2......
  • 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