State v. Tuddles

• Decision Date: 03 December 1962
• Docket Number: A--33,Nos. A--32,s. A--32
• Citation: 186 A.2d 284,38 N.J. 565
• Parties: STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert R. TUDDLES, Defendant-Appellant. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Eugene WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 565

38 N.J. 565

186 A.2d 284

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.Robert R. TUDDLES, Defendant-Appellant.

STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.Eugene WATSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. A--32, A--33.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Oct. 22, 1962.

Decided Dec. 3, 1962.

Joseph F. Walsh, Newark, for defendant-appellant, appellant, Robert R. Tuddles.

John E. Hughes, Upper Montclair, for defendant-appellant, Eugene Watson(James M. Shashaty, Upper Montclair, on the brief).

Peter Murray, Asst. Pros. of Essex County, for plaintiff-respondent, State (Brendan T. Byrne, Pros. of Essex County, attorney; Peter Murray, Newark, of counsel and on the brief).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PROCTOR, J.

The defendants, Robert Tuddles and Eugene Watson, both juveniles, were indicted along with two others on January 2, 1962, by the Essex County Grand Jury on a charge of murder.Thereafter the defendants made separate motions before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Essex County, each seeking 'an order of said Court directing that a hearing be held in pursuance of N.J.S.A. 2A:4--15.'From the court's denial of their motions, each defendant appealed to the Appellate Division.While their appeals were pending in that court, we certified both proceedings on our own motion.

The charge of murder arose out of the defendants' alleged participation in an armed robbery of a real estate office in Newark of September 26, 1961, during the course of which an employee of the real estate office was allegedly shot and killed by one of the defendants' confederates.At the time of the alleged holdup, Tuddles and Watson were 16 and 17 years of age respectively.Because of their ages, a complaint charging the defendants with juvenile delinquency had been filed, prior to the indictment, in the Juvenile and Domestice Relations Court on October 9, 1961.

A summons, also dated October 9, 1961, was served upon Watson and his mother(his father was deceased), directing them to appear at the juvenile court on October 11 to answer 'a complaint filed against Eugene for Juvenile Delinquency: Re: Bench Warrant--Larceny Auto & Adjournment & Preliminary Hearing--(MURDER).'The summons further stated: 'The family may engage legal counsel if it desires so to do.'On October 11 Watson, his mother, and his older sister appeared before the court.The court held a hearing which was preliminary in nature for the purpose of determining whether the case should be referred to the Essex County Prosecutor pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:4--15, N.J.S.A.That statute provides:

'If it shall appear to the satisfaction of the juvenile and domestic relations court that a case of juvenile delinquency as defined in section 2A:4--14 of this title committed by any juvenile of the age of 16 or 17 years, should not be dealt with by the court, either because of the fact that the person is an habitual offender, or has been charged with an offense of a heinous nature, under circumstances which may require the imposition of a sentence rather than the disposition permitted by this chapter for the welfare of society, then the court may refer such case to the county prosecutor of the county wherein the court is situate.

Any juvenile of the age of 16 or 17 years may demand a presentment and trial by jury and, in such case, when this fact is made known to the court, such case, together with all documents pertaining thereto, shall be referred to the county prosecutor.

Cases so referred to the county prosecutor shall thereafter be dealt with in exactly the same manner as a criminal case.'

The Watsons were not represented by counsel and the court did not offer to assign counsel to them if they were unable to retain counsel themselves.

At the hearing a list of previous charges of delinquency against one Eugene Watson and their disposition, in addition to the charge of homicide, was read to the defendant Watson.He admitted that he was the same Eugene Watson named in the past charges as well as the one charged with homicide in the present case.

At the conclusion fo the hearing the court referred the case to the Prosecutor of Essex County to be dealt with as a criminal case pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:4--15, N.J.S.A.andR.R 6:9--7.In the order of referral the court stated:

'It appears to my satisfaction that this boy has been charged with an offense of a heinous nature and that in addition thereto he is an habitual offender.Therefore, pursuant to Statute 2A:4--15 I am referring the case to you, since under the circumstances, the imposition of a sentence rather than the disposition permitted under the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Act may be necessary for the welfare of society.

The statute above referred to is also implemented by Supreme Court Rule 6:9--7, which requires that under these circumstances, upon referral to the Prosecutor's office the case should be handled as an adult criminal offense.'

R.R. 6:9--7, on which the court relied, provides in pertinent part:

'The judge may at any time before final disposition refer the entire cause to the prosecutor of the county for criminal prosecution where the juvenile is over the age of 16 years, and is an habitual offender or the offense charged is of such a heinous nature that for the protection of society the matter should be handled as an adult criminal offense.The hearing before this court shall then be construed as preliminary in nature to determine the course to be followed.'

At the time of Watson's hearing and for some time thereafter, Tuddles had not been apprehended.Nevertheless, a preliminary hearing was held in his absence on November 8, 1961, before the juvenile court.Tuddles' father was present and testified that Tuddles had run away from home a year before, but was see in Newark subsequent thereto.He suggested that Tuddles might have gone to Florida.He further testified that his son was the same Robert Tuddles who had appeared before the juvenile court before on charges of delinquency; that he had been placed on probation; and that he(the father) had previously signed a complaint to have Tuddles committed as an incorrigible.On the day following the hearing, the court referred the matter to the prosecutor to be dealt with as a criminal case.The order of referral set forth the same reasons as those given in the Watson case, quoted above.Four days later the defendant Tuddles was arrested in Elizabeth, New Jersey.

Thereafter, counsel was assigned to each defendant by the county court.On January 2, 1962 the Grand Jury returned indictments against both defendants for murder.On January 16, 192 Tuddles moved before the juvenile court for an order directing that a hearing be held by that court pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:4--15, N.J.S.A. at which 'the juvenile may be personally present to show reasons why the Juvenile Court should retain jurisdiction for the charge of murder presently pending against said juvenile.'The court denied the motion on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to hold such a hearing because it has previously referred the matter to the prosecutor, but the court noted its desire 'to hold a preliminary hearing * * * if a proper Judicial authority refers the matter back to the Juvenile Court.'In its oral opinion on this motion, the juvenile court indicated that it had referred Tuddles' case to the prosecutor because Tuddles was at large and possibly out of the State at the time of the preliminary hearing, and hence a charge of an indictable crime rather than merely juvenile delinquency was required for extradition purposes, if such action had become necessary.

On January 23, 1962 Watson made a motion similar to that made by Tuddles and contended that he(Watson) was entitled to a new hearing because he was not represented by counsel nor was counsel assigned to him at the hearing on October 11, 1961.He further alleged that he had unwittingly acquiesced as to some of the previous charges of delinquency which were read to him at the hearing because he was then unaware that he could dispute them, but actually he was not the Eugene Watson named in some of the charges.This motion was also denied on the ground that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because of its previous referral of the matter to the prosecutor.The court further said it knew of no authority holding that 'on the preliminary hearing (as in the present case) there must be assigned counsel,' but if a proper judicial tribunal 'makes such a finding this Court, of course, will be glad to hold a hearing with counsel present.'The appeals now before us, as mentioned above, are from the denial of these motions.

The history of the treatment of juvenile delinquency in New Jersey was set forth in State v. Monahan, 15 N.J. 34, 104 A.2d 21, 48 A.L.R.2d 641(1954), wherein it was made clear that insofar as conduct is treated as delinquent rather than criminal, the legislative approach is protective and rehabilitative and not punitive.The philosophy of the juvenile court law is aimed at rehabilitation through reformation and education in order to restore a delinquent youth to a position of responsible citizenship.In re Lewis, 11 N.J. 217, 224, 94 A.2d 328(1953);seeN.J.S. 2A:4--2, N.J.S.A., see, also, Paulsen, 'Fairness to the Juvenile Offender,'41 Minn.L.Rev. 547(1957).The statutory scheme is designed to permit the exercise of the powers of the State as Parens patriae, for the purpose of rehabilitating youthful offenders, and not of punishing them for the commission of a crime.State v. Monahan, supra, 15 N.J. at p. 38, 104 A.2d 21.In furtherance of the strong public policy that juvenile offenders should be accorded separate consideration and treatment, both for their own benefit and for the welfare of society, the Legislature has provided, in N.J.S. 2A:4--14, N.J.S.A. that the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases of juvenile delinquency. ...