State v. Wynn
Decision Date | 26 March 1956 |
Docket Number | No. A--102,A--102 |
Citation | 21 N.J. 264,121 A.2d 534 |
Parties | The STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James E. WYNN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Harry L. Shure, Asbury Park, for appellant.
John W. Applegate, Asst. Pros. of Pleas, Matawan, for respondent (Vincent P. Keuper, Pros. of the Pleas, Asbury Park, attorney).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the first degree without recommendation of life imprisonment entered after a trial before a jury in the Monmouth County Court. The appellant appeals as a matter of right, Art. VI, Sec. V, par. 1(c), Const.1948; R.R. 1:2--1(c).
The appellant was indicted for murder under N.J.S. 2A:113--1, N.J.S.A. The indictment is in the usual short form, R.R. 3:4--3(b), formerly R.S. 2:188--11. The proof of the Corpus delicti indicated a particularly brutal murder. The autopsy disclosed that the deceased died of a severe brain injury resulting from skull fractures and concussion, together with very severe bruises and contusions around the neck with the tissues badly mashed in those areas. Pictorial exhibits evidenced that the deceased had been brutally beaten about the head.
In a confession which is corroborated in important details by other evidence, see State v. Cooper, 10 N.J. 532, 92 A.2d 786 (1952); State v. Cole, 136 N.J.L. 606, 610, 56 A.2d 898 (E. & A.1948), and the cases cited there, the appellant related in detail his activities in the early part of the evening in question, which was July 10, 1955. He stated that he had visited a number of bars and did considerable drinking, and finally at 2 o'clock in the morning he hired a taxicab at the corner of Cookman and Main Streets, Asbury Park, to go to Long Branch. When they reached Deal he asked the deceased, the driver, 'to pull off from the road and let me go to the bathroom.' When he got outside of the cab he said he then demanded money of the driver who said he did not have any, and then he struck the deceased cab driver, pulled him out of the cab, struck him again, and when he fell to the ground the defendant kicked him several times. He stated then that he took the driver's wallet containing four dollars and some change and also his watch and a jacket from the rear seat of the cab.
In the confession these specific questions and answers are found
He then got in the cab and drove it away In driving around he finally drove into a dead end street in Deal, where he got out and started to walk toward Asbury Park when he was picked up by the police.
At the trial he enlarged considerably his testimony as to his drinking activities and claimed he did not kill Hagerman, but testified that he had an argument with the deceased about a rebate or refund of the taxifare. He claimed he had told the driver to take him to Long Branch, wait while he visited a friend, and then return him to Asbury Park but at the point when they stopped in Deal he changed his mind about going to Long Branch and asked the cab driver to take him back to Asbury Park and asked him if he would give him a refund of the money back as the agreement was he would pay $10 for the trip over to Long Branch and back.
He then testified that the deceased said a bargain was a bargain and would give none of the money back and that they got into an argument during which the cab driver said, 'Why you black son of a bitch, you walk now,' that he reached into the cab, struck the deceased and pulled him out of the cab and they started fighting. He said that he kicked him once and then tried to get away but that the deceased grabbed him around the knees, at which time he kicked him again. He then testified that the deceased's wrist watch came off his arm and he flung it away, not knowing where. He also stated that the deceased's wallet popped out of his pocket during the scuffle and that he, the appellant, took the wallet with the contents, figuring that was what the deceased owed him from the $10, and that he then got into the cab of the deceased, the deceased got to his feet and yelled at him not to take the cab bu nevertheless he drove off. He said that later when he was stalled on the dead end street he noticed the watch of the deceased on the seat where it presumably happened to land when he flung it away during the struggle and that he took the jacket from the car not realizing it did not belong to him.
We deem this short statement of the proofs before the court to be sufficient for present purposes, but our review of the entire record discloses considerable other proof bearing upon the death or murder of the deceased, all of which was properly evidential. We have likewise examined in its entirety the charge delivered by the trial court and we have reached the conclusion from a review of the entire record that the defendant suffered manifest wrong or injury in that charge, R.R. 1:5--1.
The trial court submitted the case to the jury on the theory of a killing occurring during the commission of a robbery which he defined in the terms of the statute, N.J.S. 2A:113--2, N.J.S.A. He likewise defined the crime of robbery, but we find the following excerpts from the charge to be contradictory and confusing:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Mejia
...State v. Jackson, 43 N.J. 148, 156, 203 A.2d 1 (1964); State v. Mount, 30 N.J. 195, 213, 152 A.2d 343 (1959); State v. Wynn, 21 N.J. 264, 271, 121 A.2d 534 (1956). Thus, this Court has recognized that there is a heightened standard to be applied in ensuring that a capital defendant's right ......
-
Witherspoon v. State of Illinois
...State v. Miller, 91 Mont. 596, 9 P.2d 474 (1932); New Jersey: State v. Sullivan, 43 N.J. 209, 203 A.2d 177 (1964), State v. Wynn, 21 N.J. 264, 121 A.2d 534 (1956); New Mexico: State v. Smith, 26 N.M. 482, 194 P. 869 (1921); North Carolina: State v. Lucas, 124 N.C. 825, 32 S.E. 962 (1899); O......
-
State v. Mount, A--111
...the trial errors were impregnated with the likelihood of having harmed the substantial rights of the defendant. See State v. Wynn, 21 N.J. 264, 271, 121 A.2d 534 (1956); cf. Meszaros v. Gransamer, 23 N.J. 179, 188, 128 A.2d 449 (1957). We are satisfied that the defendant's fair opportunity ......
-
State v. Williams
...(1980); State v. Jackson, supra, 43 N.J. at 156, 203 A.2d 1; State v. Mount, 30 N.J. 195, 213, 152 A.2d 343 (1959); State v. Wynn, 21 N.J. 264, 271, 121 A.2d 534 (1956). So important is the quality of impartiality in the trial of criminal prosecutions that jurors who have formed an opinion ......