State v. Walker

Decision Date07 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. A--103,A--103
Citation37 N.J. 208,181 A.2d 1
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Alonzo WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Benjamin Asbell, Camden, for defendant-appellant (Harry D. Ambrose, Jr., Camden, on the brief).

N. Douglas Russell, Asst. Cumberland County Pros., for plaintiff-respondent (Joseph H. Tuso, Cumberland County Pros., Attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PROCTOR, J.

The defendant Alonzo Walker was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals under R.R. 1:2--1(c).

The defendant was indicted for the murder of Mary Johnson on September 9, 1956. He entered a plea of Non vult and was sentenced to 25 to 30 years in prison. After serving several months of this sentence, he applied for a writ of Habeas corpus on the ground that he did not understand the nature of his plea. The County Court denied his application, but on appeal the Appellate Division reversed and a trial was held at which the defendant pleaded not guilty. He was convicted of murder in the first degree with a recommendation of life imprisonment. On his appeal we reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial because of error in the court's charge to the jury. State v. Walker, 33 N.J. 580, 166 A.2d 567 (1960). The trial giving rise to the present appeal resulted.

Mary Johnson was fatally shot in the early evening on Sunday, September 9, 1956, while sitting at the kitchen table in the house of her friend, Mary Brooks, at 30 Eagle Street, Bridgeton. The State called several witnesses and introduced two signed statements given by the defendant to the police to prove that he was the murderer. It was established that the defendant and Mary Johnson had lived together in Philadelphia prior to the shooting. According to the defendant's first statement made after he was apprehended on the night of the homicide the following occurred: On Friday night, two days before the shooting, he and Mary Johnson had a fight during which he slapped her; the following day she went to the Brooks house in Bridgeton. On Sunday, September 9, the defendant drove there with his son, Alonzo Walker, Jr., 'to talk with her about coming back.' In addition to Mary Johnson, he found Alonzo Williams, Mary Williams (Brooks) and Rosella Campbell there. During the course of the day he continually sought to persuade Mary Johnson to return with him to Philadelphia, but she refused. At one point he left the house and bought a skirt and blouse for her. When he returned with the clothes he also brought with him a loaded revolver which he had in his automobile. He said he took the gun with him to give it to Mary Johnson so she could 'take it and get rid of it' because 'when I get mad she is scared of it.' However, he wanted her to promise to return with him to Philadelphia before he would give up the gun. He sat at the kitchen table across from her and continued his efforts to persuade her, but she was adamant. While they were talking he took the gun out of his pocket and when she again refused him, he 'reared back in the chair and said 'you gotta go' and the gun went off.' After the shooting he ran out of the front door and dropped the gun in a neighboring yard. The defendant signed this statement. However, after it was noticed that he could not read, the statement was read aloud to him and, in the presence of Detectives Fletcher and Westcott, he again signed it. These officers testified the written statement was in complete accord with the story told by the defendant.

Mary Brooks testified Mary Johnson's throat 'was swollen, and you could see the fingernails and dark appearance' when she came to the Brooks house on Saturday, September 8. She said the defendant came to her home the next day and continually begged Mary Johnson to return with him to Philadelphia. Mary Johnson refused. Mary Brooks further testified that immediately prior to the shooting Mary Johnson was seated at the table in the kitchen; that the defendant was standing on the opposite side of the table and that she was standing alongside him. He was insisting that Mary Johnson return with him to Philadelphia that night, but she again refused. Then, in Mary Brooks' words: 'I said, 'Let her stay' * * * he said, 'No, she is going back to Philly with me.' I said, 'Let her stay.' He said, 'If she don't go back to Philly with me, she is not going back with anybody else' * * * 'She is going back with me, because nobody else is going to have her,' and that is when the report (gun shot) went off.' After the shooting she pushed the defendant, he pushed her in return and ran out of the house. She testified she never saw the gun.

On cross-examination the defendant sought to impeach Mary Brooks' testimony by the use of a signed statement she gave to a private investigator, Anthony Fiorella, on December 3, 1958. Her description there of the conversation which she had with the defendant was not identical with her testimony quoted above in that the statement contained no reference to the defendant's ever having said 'nobody else is going to have her.'

Alonzo Williams corroborated Mary Brooks' description of Mary Johnson's physical condition when she came to the Brooks house. He too testified the defendant came there on Sunday, September 9, and sought to persuade Mary Johnson to return with him to Philadelphia. Since Williams was in the living room playing records at the time of the shooting, he did not witness the homicide or hear the shot. However, he saw the defendant 'run by me like a flash' out the front door and up the street. He then learned Mary Johnson had been shot.

The defendant was apprehended by two Bridgeton policemen, Officers Ayars and Howard, on the night of the shooting. These officers testified the defendant, while being driven to police headquarters, admitted shooting Mary Johnson and then throwing the gun away. Officer Ayars testified the defendant told him 'that he came down here to get her to go back to live with him, to bring her back home. And he had been with her a few times that day, and each time he came back to the house he got madder, and finally when the time came for her to go, she wouldn't go, and he shot her and he threw the gun somewhere in the yard.'

Police officers testified that shortly after the defendant was brought to headquarters he accompanied them in a search for the gun. Although the search that night was unsuccessful, the missing gun was found by a police officer the next day in a backyard near the scene of the crime. After he was confronted with the gun, the defendant signed a second statement in which he admitted 'That is the gun I had in my hand when I shot Mary Johnson.' Chief Semple and Officer Kuyper testified the written statement accurately represented defendant's admission. Medical and ballistics experts testified Mary Johnson's death was caused by a bullet fired from this gun.

The defendant took the stand and denied shooting Mary Johnson and ever having seen the gun before. He testified that: Mary Johnson had a fight with her landlord on Friday, September 7; on Sunday, September 9, he found a note from Mary Johnson saying 'I am going down to Bridgeton. If you want me come down there'; and therefore he drove to Bridgeton with his son. When he arrived at the Brooks home he found everybody drunk. He said Mary Johnson looked 'terrible' and needed some clothes, so he left the Brooks house, bought her some clothes and returned. According to the defendant, Mary Johnson was undecided as to whether she wanted to go back to Philadelphia that night. The defendant, Mary Johnson and Mary Brooks were sitting at the kitchen table talking when they heard a gunshot. He noticed that Mary Johnson was shot on the side of her head. He said he wanted to take Mary Johnson to the hospital but Mary Brooks said he could not do anything before the police arrived. He waited around for about one hour and nobody came. The defendant said he then felt 'skiddish,' thought perhaps the bullet was intended for him and just started walking. He said the signed statements given the Bridgeton police did not represent what he had told them; that his story then was the same as it is now. Since he could not read he believed the police had written what he said and not the version which actually appears. On cross-examination the State confronted defendant with a statement filed with his application in the Habeas corpus proceedings. In that statement the defendant said: He brought the gun from his automobile into the house and told Mary Johnson he would give it to her if she would return with him to Philadelphia; while they sat at the kitchen table Mary Johnson reached across the table to take the gun away from him; he resisted and the gun accidently discharged shooting Mary Johnson; the police were called, and while awaiting their arrival, he took a walk and threw the gun away. The defendant attempted to explain away these inconsistencies with his present testimony in the same way as the other signed statements, i.e., his inability to read and know what he was signing. The State also confronted the defendant with his oral testimony during the Habeas corpus proceedings where he referred to a gun which he said he had and Mary Johnson wanted. The defendant could not explain the contradiction between this and his present testimony, and finally asserted that he had not testified accurately during the Habeas corpus proceedings.

The defendant's only other witness was Anthony Fiorella who testified that he was the investigator who had taken Mary Brooks' statement mentioned above.

During the second day of the trial, the defendant's counsel made a motion that the defendant be taken that evening 'to the City of Millville and examined by the use of a polygraph or lie detector' and offered 'to join with the State in a stipulation that the results of the same may be used...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Ravenell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 31 Julio 1964
    ...and her credibility were clearly matters for the jury. See State v. Landeros, 20 N.J. 76, 84, 118 A.2d 524 (1955); State v. Walker, 37 N.J. 208, 219, 181 A.2d 1, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 850, 83 S.Ct. 89, 9 L.Ed.2d 86 (1962). The supposed ambiguity relates to the fact that her testimony that ......
  • State v. Driver, A--111
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 19 Julio 1962
    ...has not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. State v. Walker, 37 N.J. 208, 214, 216, 181 A.2d 1 (1962); State v. Arnwine, 67 N.J.Super. 483, 171 A.2d 124 (App.Div.1961); State v. Varos, 69 N.M. 19, 363 P.2d 629 (Sup.Ct.1961)......
  • State v. Ramseur
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 5 Marzo 1987
    ...State v. Coleman, 46 N.J. 16, 45, 214 A.2d 393 (1965), cert. den., 383 U.S. 950, 86 S.Ct. 1210, 16 L.Ed.2d 212 (1966); State v. Walker, 37 N.J. 208, 218, 181 A.2d 1, cert. den., 371 U.S. 850, 83 S.Ct. 89, 9 L.Ed.2d 86 (1962). Under this standard, it was undoubtedly the rare murder whose fac......
  • State v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 31 Julio 1964
    ...testimony was a matter for the jury rather than this Court. See State v. Landeros, 20 N.J. 76, 84, 118 A.2d 524 (1955); State v. Walker, 37 N.J. 208, 219, 181 A.2d 1, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 850, 83 S.Ct. 89, 9 L.Ed.2d 86 Though the evidence for conviction may be deemed legally sufficient, t......
  • 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