State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 23 June 1993 |
| Citation | 631 A.2d 1285,267 N.J.Super. 514 |
| Parties | STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Robert Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Jon Deutsch, Asst. Prosecutor, for State (Andrew K. Ruotolo, Jr., Union County Prosecutor, attorney).
Stuart Whitefield, Metuchen, for defendant.
Defendant is charged with a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-7; Certain Persons Not to Have Weapons. The State alleged that he shot the victim with a .22 long-nose handgun. Defendant contends that he did not have a weapon, but that while he was in conversation with the victim, a carload of Haitians passed by firing weapons resulting in the wounding of the victim. A Sands hearing was held during which the State presented seven judgments of convictions. The last two convictions were for the same crime that defendant is presently charged with, namely Certain Persons Not to Have Weapons. The State chose not to exclude the two prior similar convictions from evidence.
Pursuant to State v. Brunson, 132 N.J. 377, 394, 625 A.2d 1085 (1993):
To impeach the credibility of a testifying defendant, the State may introduce into evidence only the number, degree, and date of the defendant's prior similar convictions. When a defendant has multiple prior convictions, some of which are similar to the charged offense and some of which are dissimilar, the State may introduce evidence only of the date and degree of crime of all of the defendant's prior convictions, but cannot specify the nature of the offenses. Alternatively, the State may introduce without limitation evidence of only the dissimilar convictions.
See also companion case of State v. Mann, 132 N.J. 410, 425-26, 625 A.2d 1102 (1993).
Since the record in the case at bar must be sanitized with respect to defendant's prior convictions, both similar and dissimilar, the court must determine whether the sentences imposed upon the prior convictions can be used by the State to impeach the defendant's credibility. While the Court in Brunson does not specifically state that evidence of sentence may not be used to impeach a testifying defendant, in effect it does so by not including evidence of the sentence in the statement of inclusion.
The holding of the Supreme Court as quoted above is similar to the language proposed by the American Bar Association suggesting an amendment to Fed.R.Evid. 609 governing the use of prior convictions. Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure and Evidence, A.B.A., Federal Rules of Evidence: A Fresh Review and Evaluation, 120 F.R.D. 299 (1988) (hereinafter Federal Rules of Evidence: A Fresh Review and Evaluation ). While the A.B.A. proposal is broader in scope than the holding in Brunson since it extends sanitization to all witnesses, it is similar when dealing with party defendant witnesses.
The A.B.A. committee recommended the addition of section (d), Details of Conviction, to Fed.R.Evid. 609, which section reads:
Unless the right is waived by the party whose witness is being impeached, the only details of the crime which may be admitted for impeachment are the fact of the conviction, the name of the crime (but this may not be given if the witness is a defendant who is being tried for a similar offense), the time, place and number of times convicted, and whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor. If any statement is made in mitigation, relevant rebutting details may be allowed to be inquired into.
[ Federal Rules of Evidence: A Fresh Review and Evaluation, supra, at 357.]
This rule makes it clear that the list of admissible data is all inclusive. Pursuant to the language found in the comment to the proposed rule, the committee contemplated the exclusion of evidence of the sentence imposed upon the conviction. The committee explained "[s]ince a few courts have allowed additional details, e.g., United States v. Bogers, 635 F.2d 749, 751 (8th Cir.1980), the type of details which are admissible have been included in the Rule for clarification." Federal Rules of Evidence: A Fresh Review and Evaluation, supra, at 364.
A reading of Bogers reveals that one such "additional detail" intentionally excluded in the proposed rule was the sentence imposed upon a defendant's prior conviction. In the Bogers case, the defendant argued that evidence of the sentence should have been excluded. The Court held, "we ... find no abuse of discretion in the Court's decision to allow inquiries concerning Bogers's prior sentence and parole dates." Bogers, supra, 635 F.2d at 751.
It is noteworthy that nowhere in the Brunson, supra, 132 N.J. at 377, 625 A.2d 1085, opinion is the issue of inclusion or exclusion of the sentence imposed upon prior convictions addressed. The sole concern discussed in the opinion is the prejudice that would result to a testifying defendant upon an attempt by the State to impeach the defendant's credibility by eliciting evidence of his prior convictions in general and similar prior convictions in particular.
The Court's lack of reference to the issue of sentence inclusion is also noteworthy in view of the long-standing history in New Jersey, and in a majority of other jurisdictions throughout the United States, upholding the inclusion of the sentence, as well as the crime, for purposes of impeachment. New Jersey has routinely admitted evidence of the sentence imposed upon prior convictions without questioning the soundness of that policy. State v. Sinclair, 57 N.J. 56, 269 A.2d 161 (1970); State v. Garvin, 44 N.J. 268, 208 A.2d 402 (1965); State v. Merra, 103 N.J.L. 361, 137 A. 575 (E. & A.1927); State v. Nagy, 27 N.J.Super. 1, 98 A.2d 613 (App.Div.1953); State v. Silver, 2 N.J.Misc. 479, 127 A. 545 (Sup.Ct.1924), aff'd 101 N.J.L. 232, 127 A. 545 (E. & A.1925).
The language of the relevant statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:81-12, clearly says "conviction of crime" may be proved to affect the witness's credibility. The statute does not require proof of the punishment or place or length of incarceration, for example. The Supreme Court in Garvin, supra, 44 N.J. at 281, 208 A.2d 402, although suggesting that the sentence does bear on credibility since it "is descriptive of the severity of the misdeed," mentioned the possibility that N.J.S.A. 2A:81-12 may not contemplate admission of evidence of the sentence imposed. 1 N.J.S.A. 2A:81-12 states:
For the purpose of affecting the credibility of any witness, his interest in the result of the action, proceeding or matter or his conviction of any crime may be shown by examination or otherwise, and his answers may be contradicted by other evidence.
Conviction of crime may be proved by the production of the record thereof, but no conviction of an offender shall be received in evidence against him in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hicks
...value was substantially outweighed by their capacity for prejudice. Defendant, relying on Brunson and State v. Williams, 267 N.J.Super. 514, 631 A.2d 1285 (Law Div.1993), contended further that if the convictions were admitted, the State should be precluded from referring to the sentences i......
-
State v. White
...post-Brunson retrial for sexual assault, defendant's prior sexual assault convictions had to be sanitized); State v. Williams, 267 N.J.Super. 514, 515, 631 A.2d 1285 (Law Div.1993) (noting that prior convictions of unlawful possession of handgun had to be sanitized at trial of same In the p......
- Schaser v. State Farm Ins. Co.