Case Title: State v. Charles E. Reddish, Jr.

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-47-02

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2004-11-10T00:00:00Z

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). 2. Reddish argues that informing the jury that he had been under arrest for another crime at the time he confessed to the Rosenthal murder resulted in prejudice that outweighed the probative value of that information. The trial court failed to analyze this evidence as other-crimes evidence. Rather, it incorrectly analyzed the issue under the more lenient standard of relevance under N.J.R.E. 403. When a trial court fails to employ the appropriate test to analyze the admissibility of other-crimes evidence, no deference is to be accorded the trial court's decision to admit that evidence. In attempting a compromise by ordering the facts relating to the reasons for Reddish s arrest sanitized, the trial court failed to account for the concomitant diminution in relevance occasioned by the removal of those details. Stripped of the details surrounding the arrest, the custodial nature of Reddish s confession had little relevance. The probative value of that information was outweighed by the risk that the jury would conclude that Reddish had a propensity to commit bad acts. The jury knew that Reddish s girlfriend was dead and that his arrest in Burlington County was of sufficient interest to be carried on television. In view of those circumstances, the risk, if not the likelihood, that a jury would infer that Reddish was in custody for another murder foreseeably outweighed the marginal probative value of the custodial nature of his confession. This error was compounded by the lack of a proper limiting instruction. Although the trial court s instruction addressed the permissible uses of the other-crimes evidence, it failed to explicitly caution the jury against inferring from a single instance of bad conduct a propensity on behalf of Reddish to commit crimes. (pp. 58-67) 3. Reddish also argues that the trial court s jury instruction concerning the lack of a body presented an unbalanced and misleading summary of the evidence. Once the trial court commented on the strengths of the State s evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom, the court was obliged to point to evidence and arguments that favored Reddish. The trial court s failure to do so improperly focused the jury s attention on the weaknesses in Reddish s case. (pp. 67-72) 4. The Court has recognized that although an error or series of errors might not individually amount to plain error, in combination they can cast sufficient doubt upon the verdict to warrant reversal. Mindful of that concept here, the Court does not decide whether one or the other of the two errors to which it has adverted, if standing alone, would require reversal. Rather, viewing the trial court s error in summarizing the evidence in conjunction with the improper admission of other-crimes evidence, the Court concludes that a new trial must be had. (pp. 72-73) 5. Reddish also argues that the State failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence of his confessions and that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on issues of corroboration. Although the Court is reversing the conviction on other grounds, it address these issues because a finding that the State failed to sufficiently corroborate the confessions would, at least in this case, effectively bar retrial of Reddish on these charges. After reviewing the evidence, the Court concludes that the State corroborated the confessions sufficiently to support the inference that the statements are trustworthy. The Court also holds that the trial court did not commit reversible error in failing to give a charge on corroboration. (pp. 74-83) 6. The Court rejects Reddish s remaining arguments, with one exception. Reddish complains that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by quoting an opinion of this Court in an attempt to persuade the jury that death was the appropriate punishment in this case. The Court need not determine whether those remarks amounted to reversible misconduct, but offers its observations for future guidance. The prosecutor misstated the law by taking a single quoted sentence out of context and implying that knowing or purposeful murder will alone justify sentencing a defendant to death. The Court trusts that the same mistake will not be repeated at any subsequent proceeding. (pp. 83-119) The judgment of conviction is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for a new trial. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES LONG, LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, and WALLACE join in JUSTICE ZAZZALI s opinion. Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHARLES E. REDDISH, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Argued October 8, 2003 Decided November 10, 2004 On appeal from the Superior Court, Law Division, Camden County. James K. Smith, Jr., and Brian L. Zavin, Assistant Deputy Public Defenders, argued the cause for appellant (Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney). Steven A. Yomtov, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Peter C. Harvey, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney). Charles E. Reddish, Jr., submitted a supplemental brief pro se. JUSTICE ZAZZALI delivered the opinion of the Court. A jury found defendant Charles E. Reddish, Jr., guilty of knowing or purposeful murder by his own conduct. At the sentencing phase of the trial, a separate jury determined that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court sentenced defendant to death. Defendant appeals both his conviction and his sentence. NO. A-47 SEPTEMBER TERM 2002 ON APPEAL FROM Superior Court, Law Division, Camden County STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHARLES E. REDDISH, JR., Defendant-Appellant. DECIDED November 10, 2004 Chief Justice Poritz PRESIDING OPINION BY Justice Zazzali CONCURRING OPINION BY DISSENTING OPINION BY