Case Title: State of New Jersey v. Carl Williams

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-61-04

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2005-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). Carl Williams and his brother-in-law, Brahima Bocoum, had a close relationship that deteriorated because of family problems. Ultimately, Bocoum and others telephoned Williams left several taunting and profanity-laced messages. That led to a face-to-face argument at the brother-in-law's house in Paterson, which quickly escalated into a physical fight. Williams claimed that his brother-in-law hit him in the shoulder with a construction shovel. Bocoum countered that Williams had retrieved a machete from the trunk of his car and cut Bocoum's wrist. Police had apprehended Williams in his apartment, where they found an unsheathed machete. Police also found the sheath to a machete on the sidewalk in front of the brother-in-law's house. Williams was arrested. After the arrest, Williams filed a municipal court complaint against his brother-in-law, alleging that the phone messages constituted harassment. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 1:40, the municipal court appointed a mediator, Pastor Josiah Hall, in an attempt to resolve the harassment dispute. The mediation was unsuccessful, and the mediator referred the matter back to municipal court. A Passaic County grand jury later indicated Williams for aggravated assault and two charges of possession of a weapon. At trial, Williams asserted self-defense as his primary theory and proffered the mediator as a defense witness. The mediator lived near Williams' mother but denied being a friend of Williams. Questioned by the court outside of the jury's presence, the mediator indicated that the brother-in-law stated during the mediation session that he had wielded the shovel. The court, however, excluded that testimony under Rule 1:40-4(c), which prohibits a mediator from testifying in any subsequent proceeding. Defendant was convicted of third-degree aggravated assault and a weapons possession charge. He was sentenced to three years' probation, with conditions, a fine & court costs. Williams appealed his conviction and sentence. The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's exclusion of the mediator's testimony and otherwise affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted Williams' petition for certification, limited solely to the question of the use of the mediator's testimony. HELD : The Appellate Division correctly excluded the mediator's testimony concerning statements made during mediation ordered by a municipal court on charges that were related to the incident that led to defendant's indictment. Defendant did not make the requisite showings in his criminal assault matter to overcome the mediation privilege: his need for the mediator's testimony did not outweigh the interest in mediation confidentiality, and he failed to show that the evidence was not otherwise available. 1. Municipal court mediation is part of the package of procedures encompassed in Rule 1:40, Complementary Dispute Resolution Programs (CDR). CDR is intended to encourage settlement, narrow issues for adjudication, or both. Pursuant to Rule 1:40-4(c), all statements made during mediation, whether by the mediator or by the parties, may not be used in any subsequent hearing or trial. The confidentiality Rule also prohibits mediators from appearing as a witness in a subsequent related matter. Defendant seeks a relaxation of the Rule. (pp. 10-12) 2. Although defendants have a constitutional right to confront witnesses against them, that right is not absolute and may bow to competing interests. (pp. 12-14) 3. The recently-enacted Uniform Mediation Act (UMA) was not in effect when the trial court excluded the mediator's testimony in this matter. Nonetheless, the Court agrees with amici curiae that the UMA principles, in general, are an appropriate analytical framework for determining whether defendant can overcome the mediator's privilege not to testify under the Rule. Under the UMA, mediation confidentiality is protected unless a defendant has shown a) there is a need for the evidence that substantially outweighs the interest in protecting confidentiality, and b) that the proponent of the evidence has shown that the evidence is not otherwise available. (pp. 14-15) 4. Although defendant attempts to challenge the inclusion of "substantially" in the UMA, the Court declines to consider the constitutionality of the statutory language in the context of this case. In any event, the Court's analysis does not rely on the inclusion of "substantially" as a modifier because the mediator's testimony does not outweigh, much less "substantiallyoutweigh," the interest in protecting mediation confidentiality. (p. 16) 5. Successful mediation, with its emphasis on conciliation, depends on confidentiality perhaps more than any other form of alternate dispute resolution. Also, the appearance of mediator impartiality is imperative. Overall, there is a growing body of evidence that mediation is particularly successful at facilitating settlements. (pp. 17-21) 6. Defendant argues that the admission of the mediator's testimony would constitute, at best, an "inconvenience to the mediator and the municipal court." Such a position trivializes the harm that will result if parties are routinely able to obtain compulsory process over mediators. For example, a victim could hardly be expected to trust that a mediator will be impartial if confidential statements made by the victim at mediation can be testified to by the mediator at a criminal trial. (pp. 21-23) 7. Because there is a substantial interest in protecting mediation confidentiality, the Court must consider defendant's need for the mediator's testimony. In this matter, the mediator's testimony does not to the level of reliability and trustworthiness that is demanded of competent evidence. The mediator's description of the mediation session conveyed an impression of bedlam, with speakers talking over each other. That, in turn, made it difficult for the mediator to attribute accurately specific statements to individual speakers. The mediator's testimony does not, in any event, corroborate defendant's version of what happened during the fight. Defendant's need for the mediator's testimony does not outweigh the interest in protecting mediation confidentiality. (pp. 23-26) 8. The Court also considers the question of whether defendant failed to demonstrate that evidence of the brother-in-law's use of a shovel was "not otherwise available." Both parties had access to, and presented at trial, substantial evidence from other sources bearing on the defense of self-defense. The State's witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by defense counsel, defendant's wife testified that one of the State's witnesses -- her brother Robert -- told her he lied in testifying that the brother-in-law had not wielded the shovel, and defendant himself testified in detail about his version of the fight. The Court has concluded that defendant failed to demonstrate that evidence in respect of the shovel was otherwise unavailable. (pp. 26-27) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. JUSTICE LONG has filed a dissenting opinion, in which JUSTICE ALBIN joins. She disagrees with the majority's conclusions in respect of the "need" for the mediator's testimony and whether it was "otherwise available" within the meaning of the UMA. She concludes that the mediator's position as the only objective witness placed him in a entirely distinct role from the other witnesses in the case. Any concerns about the mediator's quality as a witness should have gone to the weight accorded his testimony by the jury. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, and RIVERA-SOTO join in JUSTICE ZAZZALI's opinion. JUSTICE LONG has filed a separate dissenting opinion, in which JUSTICE ALBIN joins. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARL S. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. Argued March 15, 2005 Decided July 28, 2005 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Gilbert G. Miller, Designated Counsel, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney). Paul H. Heinzel, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Robert E. Margulies submitted a letter brief on behalf of amicus curiae Committee for Dispute Resolution (Margulies, Wind & Herrington, attorneys). Edwin J. McCreedy, President, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae New Jersey State Bar Association. JUSTICE ZAZZALI delivered the opinion of the Court. In this appeal, we must decide whether a mediator appointed by a court under Rule 1:40 may testify in a subsequent criminal proceeding regarding a participant s statements made during mediation. Defendant s brother-in-law phoned defendant and left several taunting messages, leading to a face-to-face argument that quickly escalated into a physical fight. Defendant claims that his brother-in-law hit him in the shoulder with a large construction shovel. The brother-in-law counters that defendant retrieved a machete from the trunk of his car and cut the brother-in-law s wrist and foot. Police later apprehended defendant in his apartment where they found a machete. After his arrest, defendant filed a municipal court complaint against his brother-in-law, alleging that the phone messages constituted harassment. The municipal court, in accordance with Rule 1:40, appointed a mediator in an attempt to resolve the harassment dispute. The mediation was unsuccessful, and the mediator referred the matter back to municipal court. A grand jury later indicted defendant for aggravated assault and two charges of possession of a weapon. Defendant asserted self-defense as his primary theory and proffered the mediator as a defense witness. Questioned by the court outside of the jury s presence, the mediator indicated that the brother-in-law stated during the mediation session that he had wielded the shovel. The court, however, excluded that testimony under Rule 1:40-4(c), which prohibits a mediator from testifying in any subsequent proceeding. Defendant was convicted of assault and a weapons charge. The Appellate Division upheld the trial court s exclusion of the mediator s testimony and affirmed defendant s conviction. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the Appellate Division and affirm. Plaintiff-Respondent v. CARL S. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. LONG, J., DISSENTING. The majority has essentially applied the rule we enunciated in State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147, 171-72 (2003) that where evidence is relevant and necessary to the defense of a criminal case, and cannot be otherwise obtained, it will not be shielded by a privilege. That is the proper paradigm for this case. However, I disagree with the Court s conclusions regarding the need for the mediator s testimony and whether it was otherwise available within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:23C-6(b). Obviously, those are fact-sensitive conclusions. However, the facts in this case do not support them. This case was a pitched credibility battle over whether defendant acted in self-defense when confronted by Bocoum, wielding a shovel against him. Defendant testified that Bocoum had a shovel. Bocoum testified that he did not. All of the other witnesses were partisans of defendant or Bocoum, related by blood or marriage. Renee Oliver, Bocoum s wife, and her brother, Robert Eckford, supported Bocoum s position that he never picked up or swung a shovel at defendant. Kia Williams, defendant s wife and the sister of Renee and Robert, testified that Robert admitted to her on more than one occasion that Bocoum did wield a shovel and that he had lied in his testimony. Defendant, the most interested of all witnesses, testified that Bocoum admitted during mediation that he had a shovel. If Bocoum made that admission, it was in direct conflict with his trial testimony and dramatically undercut his credibility on the fundamental issue in the case: self-defense. I disagree with the majority s conclusion that defense evidence on the subject obviated the need for the mediator s testimony. The mediator s position as the only objective witness placed him in an entirely distinct role from the other witnesses in the case. See Model Jury Charge (Criminal), Credibility of Witnesses, (2002) (stating jury, in determining whether a witness is . . . credible, may take into consideration . . . the possible bias, if any, in favor of the side for whom the witness testified ). The evidence that the mediator could have given was therefore different in kind from that of defendant. See Corkery v. Central R.R. of New Jersey, 43 A. 655, 655 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1899) (holding evidence of a different kind and character to be not cumulative ); Van Riper v. Dundee Mfg. Co., 33 N.J.L. 152, 156 (Sup. Ct. 1868) (defining cumulative evidence as additional evidence to support the same point, and which is of the same character as evidence already produced ) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Because the mediator was the only witness without a proverbial ax to grind , his testimony was not otherwise available , nor was it cumulative. Indeed, it could have turned the tide in this very close case. Therefore, it was essential both to the defense of the criminal charges against defendant and to the very fairness of the trial. That was a sufficient basis on which to breach the mediator s privilege. Finally, I believe that this Court overstepped its bounds in declaring that the mediator s testimony does not exhibit the indicia of reliability and trustworthiness demanded of competent evidence. See footnote 2 In support of its conclusion, the majority has excerpted portions of the mediator s testimony that, to me, do not fully reflect the entire colloquy. The complete transcript of the mediator s testimony leaves a different impression than those excerpts: Mediator: They were talking about the fight that they has. Carl [Williams] says that they went into a fight and they come together and he picked up the next gentleman and he threw him and they fell into a garbage bin, okay? He says -- and I ask him did you use a weapon and he says no. The other fellow says that it was a fight and there was a shovel at the door and he picked up the shovel and -- but he didn t make any hit with it. The wife says that she threw her shoes at Carl. They started to raise their voices. I says you know what? My part of this court is, if I started to ask questions, only one person at a time. And both of them start. I says okay, listen, let me -- case closed. And I send it back to the judge. Trial Judge: So you weren t able to get an account given by any one of them sitting down talking without other people talking at the same time? Mediator: Both of them was talking at the same time. One is saying I picked you up and threw you; the other one said there was a shovel, I picked up the shovel. And they were talking, going on. I says let the case close, send it back for trial. Because I m only there to settle the cases. If I get settled, then I wrote it up, wrote a statement up, and I signed it; then both parties sign it and the judge signs it. They both get a copy and they go home, settled. If I doesn t settle it, then I send it back. Trial Judge: Did you have any contact with any of them between the time you mediated it and last Friday? Mediator: No. I don t even know the people here, if I saw them right now, the people might come in, I wouldn t even know them, cause I only -- Carl, I met him the first time in court. Trial Judge: Then you didn t see him again until last Friday? Mediator: To be frank, I saw him before Friday, but we didn t have no contact with nothing like this case. Trial Judge: Oh. Well, are you able to remember today who said that the one fellow had a shovel, whether Carl said he had a shovel or the guy said -- Mediator: The guy says he has a shovel; he picked up the shovel; it was some place at the door. Trial Judge: It wasn t Carl that said the guy picked up the shovel? Mediator: No. The next guy -- I don t know his name; I don t remember his name -- he said he s the one that picked up the shovel. It seemed like he picked up -- to my understanding, the little knowledge that I have -- he picked up the shovel, but he didn t say he hit Carl with it or nothing. And they both started to wrestle. [Emphasis added.] There is nothing unclear about that testimony. Plainly, Bocoum admitted, in the mediator s presence, to wielding a shovel. That, in turn, rendered the mediator s testimony relevant and necessary to the defense. Any further concerns over the mediator s quality as a witness (e.g., ability to recollect or bias) went to the weight to be accorded to his testimony by the jury, not its admissibility. For all those reasons, I dissent. JUSTICE ALBIN joins in this opinion. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARL S. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED July 28, 2005 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Zazzali CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINIONS BY DISSENTING OPINION BY Justice Long