State v. Thompson

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtFRANCIS
Citation59 N.J. 396,283 A.2d 513
Decision Date08 November 1971
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Frederick Benjamin THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 396

59 N.J. 396
283 A.2d 513
STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Frederick Benjamin THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued March 8, 1971.
Decided Nov. 8, 1971.

Page 401

[283 A.2d 515] Edward F. Kent, Leonia, for appellant (Stanley C. Van Ness, Public Defender, attorney).

Charles M. Egan, Jr., Morris County Prosecutor, for respondent (Donald G. Collester, Jr., Asst. Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief; Charles M. Egan, Jr., Morristown, attorney).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

FRANCIS, J.

The Grand Jury of Morris County indicted defendant Frederick Thompson for the murder of Dorothy Palmer on Friday, September 29, 1967, in Harding Township of that county. At a jury trial which concluded on November 21, 1968, Thompson was convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury made no recommendation of life imprisonment, and, therefore, pursuant to the statutory mandate, the trial court imposed the death penalty. N.J.S.A. 2A:113--4. Direct appeal followed in due course. R. 2:2--1(a)(3).

The case was argued some time ago and under ordinary circumstances would have been decided at an earlier date. However, defendant raised certain constitutional questions the resolution of which depends upon the outcome of a number of appeals pending in the United States Supreme Court, and certain other appeals which are to be reargued in this Court. Since vacancies in the United States Supreme Court make it unlikely the decisions therein will be forthcoming for some time, we have concluded that all aspects of this appeal should be disposed of now, reserving only those issues which must await action there or reargument in this Court.

Page 402

I.

Prior to her death the decedent Dorothy Palmer and her husband H. Bruce Palmer resided in a ranch type, one-family dwelling situated in a sparsely populated residential area on Blue Mill Road, Harding [283 A.2d 516] Township, a short distance outside of the Town of Morristown. The main entrance is located in the center of the house and opens into a large foyer behind which is a sizeable combination living room-dining room. The right wing of the house consists principally of Mr. Palmer's bedroom in the front, Mrs. Palmer's bedroom in the rear, with a connecting bath between the two. The left wing contains the kitchen, a utility or laundry area, a family room or den and a spare bedroom or guest room. For some time prior to the killing the Palmers lived alone in the house; their children had married and moved elsewhere.

The Palmers also maintained an apartment in New York City, and they had been occupying it earlier in the week of September 29. On Thursday, September 28, Mr. Palmer left for a business conference in Massachusetts, and Mrs. Palmer returned alone to their Harding Township home.

The defendant Thompson knew the Palmer property. In 1964 or 1965 while in the employ of a tree expert he worked on the trees there on several occasions. Mr. Palmer had conversed with Thompson on at least one occasion and knew him well enough to identify him at the trial.

Thompson was paroled from a Connecticut prison on September 27, 1967. His parole officer had found a job for him in Bridgeport, Connecticut, to commence on September 28. Thompson talked with the prospective employer on the day of his release and arranged to report for work the following morning. He appeared as directed, but said he had some personal business to take care of and would come in the next day, September 29. However, he did not appear and the prospective employer never heard from him again.

Page 403

On Steptember 28 Thompson came to New Jersey. Around noon of that day he visited a shop in Paterson which was operated by Fred Salonen. His purpose was to sell some sketches he had made. Salonen knew Thompson because he had visited the store on earlier occasions, but he did not buy any of the sketches on this occasion. It was apparent that Salonen was acquainted with Thompson's wife also because Thompson inquired as to whether he had seen her. At the prosecutor's request Salonen pointed out Thompson in the courtroom.

An Erie-Lackawanna railroad conductor positively identified Thompson as a person he had seen board his train at East Orange in the early morning of September 29, and alight at Morristown at 1:27 A.M. The conductor knew the passengers who generally used his train on that early morning hour run, and Thompson being a new face was particularly noticed by him.

Shortly before 9 A.M. on September 29, Mrs. Palmer drove to Madison and picked up Mrs. Mary Venneri who did house-cleaning for her one day a week. At about 9:05 A.M. they came back to the Palmer house, entered the garage in the left wing and went upstairs into the foyer. After giving instructions to Mrs. Venneri about her duties for the day, Mrs. Palmer went off in the direction of her bedroom and Mrs. Venneri went to the laundry room to prepare for the work. There she noticed some leaves and peat moss on the floor and began to pick them up. While doing so she heard a sound like a sigh and ran into the guest room. From there she saw Mrs. Palmer on the floor in the foyer with a man about six feet two inches tall standing over her holding a knife in his right hand. She said it was light in the foyer although it was raining outside. She described the man as being dressed in dark clothes, and although she testified she would never forget his face 'as long as (she) lives,' and that his complexion was 'light,' it seems plain that she was not certain on the scene whether he was white or black. Thompson is a Negro of fairly light complexion.

Page 404

It appears that five or six days after the murder when Mrs. Venneri identified Thompson as the killer from some photographs of whites and blacks, she did not know then whether he was white or black. However, at the trial she left the witness stand and identified[283 A.2d 517] him, saying there was no question that he was the man.

Mrs. Venneri testified that when she came upon the scene the man holding the knife said 'Don't move. I'll kill you next.' But she screamed and ran out of the back door calling for help. A passing female motorist picked her up. The motorist, Mrs. Ellen S. Fearon, testified that Mrs. Venneri was 'hysterical' in describing what was going on in the Palmer house, and on reaching the nearest telephone they called the police, who asked that they return to the Palmer driveway. The police arrived at 9:24 A.M. and on entering the house found Mrs. Palmer face down in the foyer. No sign of breathing or pulse was detected but one officer called an ambulance and a doctor, and then turned the body over in order to apply a resuscitator. There was a can of 'Rebuff,' a mace type repellant, in Mrs. Palmer's right hand. This was removed and shortly thereafter some photographs of the body were taken.

Police examination of the house revealed a ground level window in Mr. Palmer's bedroom had been pushed in and its screen ripped. Inside on the floor there were broken glass and pieces of wood from the window; also particles of mud and peat moss had been tracked across the room. In Mrs. Palmer's bedroom 'scuff marks,' traces of mud on pieces of furniture, and a half string of pearls were found. The other half of the string of pearls was under the body in the foyer. Blood was noted on the wood molding in the small alcove of Mrs. Palmer's bedroom. A footprint was seen on the bathroom rug, and a photograph taken of it was admitted in evidence over defendant's objection.

A State Trooper observed spots on the foyer wall which proved to be Rebuff. On the day after the murder, another trooper found a pocketbook in a wooded area near the Palmer

Page 405

house. It was identified by Mr. Palmer as belonging to his wife. It contained several items belonging to her, but no money, and the small billfold in which she ordinarily carried her money was never found. A chemist who examined the pocketbook around October 6 found stains of Rebuff on both the inside and outside of it. He testified that the vapor was projected from the can by deflecting a button located on the top, and he gave the opinion over objection that the stains on the inside of the pocketbook had been caused by discharge within that area and that the discharge had occurred fairly recently. On cross-examination he expressed the opinion that the Rebuff spray had been released by 'someone taking it out of the pocketbook.' He noted also that the can had human blood on the outside surface.

Mrs. Palmer's body was removed and later in the day an autopsy was performed. The examining physician found 25 lacerations over the entire body, including the left hand and arm, the chest, one ankle, the back and shoulder blades, the neck and one thigh. The cause of death was 'a bilateral pneumothorax and hemorrhage from lacerations of the abdominal aorta * * * due to knife wounds.'

Commencing on the day of the murder and lasting for about six days, an intensive search for the killer was carried on. One hundred fifty to 200 men were involved and the effort was largely directed toward the nearby 'Great Swanp.' Helicopters were utilized but the search proved unproductive.

For reasons that need not be detailed, since they were not disclosed in the presence of the jury, suspicion began to point to Thompson and investigation revealed that he had spent three days between Spetember 28 and October 4 in a Newark rooming house. The police located Mrs. Joyce Ferrell, defendant's sister-in-law. She and her sister, defendant's wife, are white. Mrs. Ferrell testified to the substance of some telephone calls she received from Thompson before and after the murder. Thompson called her on September 27 inquiring as to the whereabouts of his wife; she said

Page 406

she did not know. On Monday, [283 A.2d 518] October 2, and Wednesday, October 4, he again phoned from Newark seeking information about his wife. Then he called her on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
113 practice notes
  • State v. Williams, No. 13023
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • April 14, 1987
    ...U.S. 1108, 97 S.Ct. 1143, 51 L.Ed.2d 562 (1977); Commonwealth v. Paszko, 391 Mass. 164, 169-71, 461 N.E.2d 222 (1984); State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 414, 283 A.2d 513 (1971). Recurring photographs taint an identification procedure only when, in the context of the entire array, the recurre......
  • State v. Case, No. WD 61626.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 13, 2004
    ...P.2d at 995; Doisher v. State, 658 P.2d 119, 120 (Alaska 1983); Wickliffe v. State, 424 N.E.2d 1007, 1009 (Ind.1981); State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 283 A.2d 513, 520 (1971) (holding that defendants "No comment" reply to question, "You didn't do that, did you Ben?" was tacit Case argues he......
  • State v. Carter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • August 17, 1982
    ...If the subject matter is adequately covered in the text and purport of the whole charge, there is no prejudicial error. State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 411, 283 A.2d 513 (1971). Such is the case We have reviewed the numerous other alleged errors and find no merit in them. The judgments of c......
  • State v. Coruzzi
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • March 24, 1983
    ...A.2d 340 (1974). If, on reading the charge as a whole, prejudicial error does not appear, then the verdict must stand. State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 411, 283 A.2d 513 (1971); State v. Council, 49 N.J. 341, 342, 230 A.2d 383 Defendant contends that the jury was erroneously permitted to con......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
113 cases
  • State v. Williams, No. 13023
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • April 14, 1987
    ...U.S. 1108, 97 S.Ct. 1143, 51 L.Ed.2d 562 (1977); Commonwealth v. Paszko, 391 Mass. 164, 169-71, 461 N.E.2d 222 (1984); State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 414, 283 A.2d 513 (1971). Recurring photographs taint an identification procedure only when, in the context of the entire array, the recurre......
  • State v. Case, No. WD 61626.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 13, 2004
    ...P.2d at 995; Doisher v. State, 658 P.2d 119, 120 (Alaska 1983); Wickliffe v. State, 424 N.E.2d 1007, 1009 (Ind.1981); State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 283 A.2d 513, 520 (1971) (holding that defendants "No comment" reply to question, "You didn't do that, did you Ben?" was tacit Case argues he......
  • State v. Carter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • August 17, 1982
    ...If the subject matter is adequately covered in the text and purport of the whole charge, there is no prejudicial error. State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 411, 283 A.2d 513 (1971). Such is the case We have reviewed the numerous other alleged errors and find no merit in them. The judgments of c......
  • State v. Coruzzi
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • March 24, 1983
    ...A.2d 340 (1974). If, on reading the charge as a whole, prejudicial error does not appear, then the verdict must stand. State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 411, 283 A.2d 513 (1971); State v. Council, 49 N.J. 341, 342, 230 A.2d 383 Defendant contends that the jury was erroneously permitted to con......
  • 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