State v. Weaver

Citation219 N.J. 131,97 A.3d 663
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Decision Date08 September 2014
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Jahnell WEAVER, Defendant–Appellant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kevin G. Byrnes, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney).

Jason Magid, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Warren W. Faulk, Camden County Prosecutor, attorney; Nancy P. Scharff, Assistant Prosecutor, on the letter briefs).

Alexander R. Shalom argued the cause for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (Edward L. Barocas, Legal Director and Ronald K. Chen, Acting Dean of Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic Center for Law & Justice, attorneys; Mr. Shalom, Mr. Barocas, and Jeanne M. Locicero, of counsel and on the brief).

Brian J. Uzdavinis, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney).

Judge CUFF (temporarily assigned) delivered the opinion of the Court.

On a warm summer evening in late June 2004, approximately fifty young men and women gathered at the Camden apartment of a recent high school graduate to celebrate her graduation. Later in the evening, a verbal argument erupted on the street in front of the apartment between two young men—Jahnell Weaver and Edward Williams. Each had a friend standing by their side. As the verbal altercation continued, someone drew a gun and fired five shots. Williams died from three gunshot wounds. His friend, Amyr Hill, was gravely wounded by two gunshots but survived. Weaver and his friend fled from the scene.

The police investigation quickly focused on Weaver and Khalil Bryant. Based on statements obtained from Hill and several eyewitnesses, police determined that the shots were fired by either Weaver or Bryant. Both were subsequently charged with the murder of Williams, the attempted murder of Hill, and various weapons charges.

The focus of the trial was the identity of the shooter. Hill initially identified Bryant as the shooter but later modified his identification, stating that he was not sure whether Weaver or Bryant fired the shots. An eyewitness provided similar testimony. Another eyewitness provided a description of the shooting that suggested Bryant was the shooter. Two other eyewitnesses stated unequivocally that Weaver shot both young men.

Weaver contended that Bryant, not he, shot the young men. In support of this defense, Weaver sought to introduce evidence of Bryant's involvement in a later shooting in which he used the murder weapon. Weaver also moved for a separate trial. Applying the Cofield1 analysis rather than a simple relevancy analysis, the trial court denied Weaver's defensive use of the subsequent other-crimes evidence and denied the severance motion.

Related to the subsequent shooting event, the State admitted a redacted portion of Bryant's statement in which he stated that he received the gun from someone immediately after the Camden shooting occurred. Other trial evidence permitted the jury to readily find that the “someone” who gave the gun to Bryant on the night of the Camden shooting was none other than Weaver.

No one error is determinative of this appeal. The confluence of Weaver's third-party defense strategy, the erroneous denial of Weaver's defensive use of Bryant's subsequent acts with the murder weapon, the denial of his motion to sever the trial, the admission of an inadequately redacted statement by Bryant, and the erroneous admission, over the objection of the prosecutor and Weaver's attorney, of when Bryant received the murder weapon require a new trial.

I.
A.

This appeal arises from a verbal dispute between two young men during a high school graduation party in Camden in June 2004 that escalated to shots fired, leaving one young man dead and another seriously wounded. Either defendant or Bryant shot the victims. Certain facts are undisputed.

On June 26, 2004, about fifty people between the ages of sixteen and nineteen assembled at a high school graduation party for a seventeen-year-old girl. Late in the evening, four young men gathered outside her apartment. Edward Williams and defendant Jahnell Weaver became embroiled in a verbal dispute. Hill stood by Williams' side. Bryant stood by the side of defendant. The two groups faced each other only several feet apart. Some witnesses described Williams as screaming at defendant, who spoke quietly and laughed at Williams. Williams asked Hill for his phone and called a friend. Hill did not hear the entire conversation but thought Williams was requesting aid from the person with whom he spoke.

At that moment five shots were fired. Williams was struck by three bullets, Hill by two. Both men tried to flee but Williams fell in the street; Hill fell closer to the curb.

As onlookers rushed to the aid of Williams and Hill, many observed defendant and Bryant run from the scene. Lamike Goffney, the godmother of one eyewitness and the guardian of another, observed one of the fleeing men transfer a gun to the other man. Almost a year later, Bryant admitted that sometime on the night of the shooting he gained possession of the murder weapon after the shooting.

Someone placed Hill in a car that drove away from the scene at a high rate of speed. The car was intercepted by an emergency medical services (EMS) vehicle. Hill was removed from the car, placed in the EMS vehicle, and taken to the hospital.2 Police and another EMS vehicle soon arrived at the scene of the shooting. Williams was removed and taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.3

The central issue, and the only disputed issue at trial, was who shot Williams and Hill. Even that issue was narrowly focused because all the evidence pointed to either defendant or Bryant.

In his first interview following discharge from the hospital, Hill told a defense investigator that Bryant shot him. At trial, he testified that he was not sure whether defendant or the person who was standing next to defendant fired the gun.

Bryant DeShields observed part of the verbal altercation between defendant and Williams. DeShields was a close friend of Williams and Hill and knew defendant from school and the neighborhood. In his first statement, given within three or four hours of the shooting, DeShields told the investigator that defendant did not shoot Williams or Hill. Four days later, however, he informed the same investigator that he was not sure who shot his friends. At trial, he testified that he “saw a hand,” and stated he did not “know whose hand it was,” but he had no doubt that the shots were fired by either defendant or Bryant.

Cherae Frazier testified that she saw defendant lift his shirt and pull a gun from his pants and shoot Williams and Hill. Jasmaine Watkins testified that she saw defendant fire a gun five or six times. Goffney, Frazier's godmother and Watkins' guardian, responded to the scene after hearing the gunshots and encountered Frazier. In response to Goffney's questionabout the whereabouts of Watkins, Frazier stated, [defendant] didn't have to kill him. [Defendant] didn't have to kill him.”

Goffney also saw two young men, one dressed in a white shirt and blue shorts, running from the site of the shooting. The young man in the blue shorts “passed the other guy something.” She explained that [o]ne had something in his hand. He passed the other one whatever he had in his hand and they kept on running.”

DeShields testified that Bryant wore a navy blue hat pulled low over his eyes and had a white cast or a cast-like object on one arm. Frazier and Dominique Pratt, another eyewitness, confirmed that Bryant wore a white cast on his right arm.

Pratt also saw Bryant dancing at the party. As Bryant danced, Pratt saw a gun fall from his waistband two or three times. In addition, Pratt observed the verbal dispute between defendant and Williams. Pratt observed defendant and Bryant have “a little exchange” of something, but could not identify what passed between the two young men. Soon thereafter, Pratt “saw a cast go up and [ ] an arm under it and [ ] heard gunshots.” Pratt could not state whether defendant or Bryant fired the gun.

B.

Following waiver to adult court, a grand jury indicted seventeen-year-old Jahnell Weaver and Khalil J. Bryant and charged them with the following offenses: first-degree murder, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:11–3(a)(1) or (2) (count one); first-degree attempted murder, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:5–1 and 2C:11–3 (count two); second-degree aggravated assault, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12–1(b)(1) (count three); third-degree aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12–1(b)(2) (count four); second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39–4(a) (count five); third-degree unlawful possession of a weapon, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39–5(b) (count six); and two counts of third-degree endangering an injured victim, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:12–1.2 (counts seven and eight).

Defendant filed a motion for severance pursuant to Rule 3:15–2(b). Defendant contended that Bryant, not he, was the shooter. In support of this defense, defendant sought to introduce other-crimes evidence that showed that Bryant threatened to use, and did use, the same firearm used to shoot Williams and Hill at a later date. Defendant argued that the other-crimes evidence showed Bryant had the intent to use the murder weapon. The trial court, applying the four-prong Cofield test, ruled that the other-crimes evidence was inadmissible because it was not relevant to any issue and was unduly prejudicial to Bryant. The court also denied defendant's motion for a trial separate from Bryant.

Defendant and Bryant were tried together. The jury found defendant guilty of all counts. The jury acquitted Bryant of counts one, two, three, four, and five, but found him guilty of counts six, seven, and eight. Defendant is serving an aggregate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
146 cases
  • State v. Cotto
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 18, 2022
    ...However, this principle does not apply "where no error was prejudicial and the trial was fair." Ibid. (quoting State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 155, 97 A.3d 663 (2014) ).In this case, we find only one error that might be considered as part of a cumulative-error analysis—the failure to instruc......
  • State v. Watson
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 6, 2022
    ...the hearsay rule but also a constitutional right, an appellate court must determine whether the error impacted the verdict." 219 N.J. 131, 154, 97 A.3d 663 (2014) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) ). "The standard has been phrased as requiri......
  • Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • September 11, 2019
    ...and denies admission of the statement because it is a mixture of exculpatory and incriminatory statements." State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131, 158-59, 97 A.3d 663 (2014) ; accord N.T., 445 N.J. Super. at 499-500, 139 A.3d 108. Those defendants' statements about warnings, when those statements w......
  • Serrano v. Chicken-Out Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • July 22, 2016
  • 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