Opinion ID: 1959182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: issues relating to both the guilt and penalty phases.

Text: Defendant argues that prejudicial information concerning his relationships with women was wrongfully admitted at both phases of the proceeding in contravention of Evidence Rule 55. In this regard he points to the disclosure that he was seeing his thirteen year old co-participant in these crimes, that when he arrived at police headquarters to turn himself in he was accompanied by a young lady, that he was dating Marilyn Howard during the early months of 1984 while also bigamously married to Bernice Simmons and carrying on a sexual relationship with Antoinette James, and that he had fathered four children. Those he characterized as the introduction of crimes and/or civil wrongs. Defendant's objection to that information would be more properly based on its prejudicial impact under Evidence Rule 4, because those facts were not adduced to give rise to an inference of guilt to the crimes charged. Rule 55 provides that evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that he committed a crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but ... is admissible to prove some other fact in issue.... None of those disclosures was made in attempts to prove that defendant had committed the crimes in question, but they were properly presented in relation to other issues. The determination of admissibility is largely a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Allison, 208 N.J. Super. 9, 177, 504 A. 2d 1184 (App.Div. 1985). We find that trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the admissibility of these relationships with defendant. In the course of detailing his efforts to locate the defendant, Detective Eutsey told the jury that he had located Kisha, a young woman defendant had been seeing. Defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on that information, but the trial court denied the motion, explaining that I don't see how that prejudices the defendant. The detective also noted that defendant arrived at police headquarters accompanied by another woman. All of those disclosures are generally relevant to the issue of defendant's guilt of the crimes charged. The fact that the co-participant is very young is relevant to whether the defendant acted knowingly or purposefully, and the efforts of Detective Eutsey to locate defendant and his subsequent arrest of Kisha similarly are related to the overall issue of defendant's identification. The trial court validly exercised its discretion with respect to these facts. Ms. Howard testified that defendant had told her he was having sexual relations with Antoinette James, and that the Basses had pressed rape charges against him. The court held that information that defendant was dating Ms. Howard was relevant to the jury assessment of Ms. Howard's credibility, and that the nature of the relationship was not overly significant. Evidence of defendant's bigamy was derived from various sources. William Campbell was presented by the defense during the penalty phase of the trial to testify about defendant's suicide attempt, which he said occurred as defendant left the home of his wife, as proof of his despair over the departure of Bernice Simmons and his son. In an effort to show the friendly nature of their relationship and any corresponding bias, the State asked the witness how he knew defendant. Mr. Campbell explained that they were acquainted through their respective wives. The prosecutor then elicited testimony that the wife Mr. Campbell was referring to was a different woman from Bernice Simmons, and that it was the home of this woman that defendant left immediately before driving his car into a wall. Defense objected to any questioning about the wife. The prosecutor responded that the defense had put him on to testify that the man came out and drove his car into a brick wall after talking to his wife. The court permitted the questioning. That information was clearly proper to rebut the inference that the suicide attempt was related to Bernice Simmons, as well as to the credibility of the witness. Evidence Rule 20 permits any party to examine a witness on any issue relevant to credibility. Similarly, the State asked Ms. McDougald if she had told Bernice Simmons about defendant's other wife before the two had married. The prosecutor asserted that this issue was relevant to her credibility in showing that the witness was protecting her son. Later Bernice Simmons testified that Ms. McDougald had in fact told her about the other marriage. The use of this inconsistency in Ms. McDougald's trial testimony is proper. A defense witness is subject to impeachment, and use of prior inconsistent statements is proper. State v. DiRienzo, 53 N.J. 360, 383, 251 A. 2d 99 (1969). Finally, disclosure that defendant had other children was also proper to rebut the extent of his distress over losing his infant son. Defense counsel brought out the fact that Bernice Simmons had given birth to another of defendant's children while in South Carolina. Moreover, the trial court exercised its discretion in determining that these facts were not unduly prejudicial to defendant, and therefore properly admitted. Only where an abuse of discretion is palpable will those rulings be disturbed. Ostroski v. Mount Prospect Shop-Rite, Inc., 94 N.J. Super. 374, 382, 228 A. 2d 545 (App.Div. 1967).
Defendant also objects to numerous color photographs admitted at both stages of his trial. In conjunction with Detective Conti's testimony at the guilt phase, the State introduced into evidence four photographs of the victims taken at the crime scene. Two of these depicted Walter Bass as he was found on the kitchen floor and two were of the body of Maria Bass as she was found in the front bedroom. The defense objected to the enlarged photographs from the original eight by ten size to fourteen by eighteens, as unduly inflammatory and adding nothing relevant. Further, the defense asserted that, regardless of the size, these photos were unduly prejudicial to defendant and should not have been admitted. The State responded that the enlargement merely facilitated reference to the pictures by testifying witnesses, and that this did not create any unique or additional prejudice. The trial court agreed that the enlargements were not particularly inflammatory, that the pictures were relevant to the case the State had to prove, whether or not disputed, and that prejudice to defendant did not preclude their admission. All but S-12, repetitious of S-13, were admitted. Later in the guilt phase, the State offered eight color autopsy photos in relation to the testimony of Assistant Medical Examiner Melczer. The defense strenuously objected to the use of these photographs, alleging that they were highly prejudicial, repetitive of the previously introduced crime scene pictures, and again unnecessarily enlarged. Although the State was precluded from using the enlargements offered (apparently 16 X 18s), most of them were nonetheless ruled admissible by the trial court. Two of those photographs showed Walter Bass' head and upper torso. The court admitted those, finding them not unduly repetitious of previously admitted pictures of Mr. Bass as he was found in his home, nor fatally prejudicial, but instead highly relevant to proving knowing or purposeful murder. Photographs of Maria Bass showed her head, shaved by the Medical Examiners, and the injuries thereon. Her head was propped back which resulted in graphically showing a gaping throat wound. The defense objected to this intervention and asserted a lack of probative value to these photos. The court held:         Again, all of these things are highly relevant to the issue of purposeful and knowing [,] what happened to her at the hands of the person who committed this offense. I think they obviously have relevance. I think they may be somewhat obviously prejudicial as any such photographs are in a criminal case, but again I don't think they are meant to be inflammatory. They show the injury to the person. Each one of them show a different one. They are obviously necessary for the injury [sic] to make a fair evaluation of the manner this offense was committed and therefore, I will permit them. I believe that the probative value far outweighs the possible prejudice to the defendant. However, again I would ask the court reporter to mark the smaller photographs because I think they adequately depict the conditions and I don't think it's necessary to have the blowups here. Finally, two other autopsy photographs showed Maria Bass lying on her back and stomach with the bat protruding from her vagina. The State asserted that this photograph was probative of the effort McDougald exerted in order to insert the bat, to the point it had to be physically removed by the doctor, and that the underwear had to first be moved. The court found probative value in that these photos showed what means he had to go through to insert the bat, and again that they were not unduly prejudicial. All the photographs except those which were repetitious were admitted into evidence. At the penalty phase, the State moved into evidence all of the photographs admitted during the guilt phase, including the photographs that the court had excluded at the guilt phase. Defense counsel again objected to the pictures. The court overruled the objection and found they were probative of aggravating factor c(4)(c) because they proved aggravated battery. The court held that they were relevant and admitted them. Defendant contests the admission of the photos in both phases of the trial, arguing that they were highly prejudicial, had only the flimsiest probative value, and that the issues they went to prove were adequately covered by other evidence. State v. Walker, 33 N.J. 580, 166 A. 2d 567 (1960). The admission of photographs of the victim of a crime rests in the discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of its discretion will not be reversed in the absence of a palpable abuse thereof. State v. Thompson, 59 N.J. 396, 420, 283 A. 2d 513 (1971). Evidence Rule 4 allows the trial court discretion to exclude evidence if it finds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk that its admission will ... create substantial danger of undue prejudice.... Evid.R. 4. To demonstrate such abuse of discretion, the potential for prejudicial information must significantly outweigh the photos' probative worth, to the extent that the jurors are diverted from a reasonable and fair evaluation of the basic issue of guilt or innocence. State v. Sanchez, 224 N.J. Super. 231, 251, 540 A. 2d 201 (1988). In Sanchez, the defendant objected to photographs of the victim that showed close-ups of gunshot wounds to the hand, chest, and face, and broader pictures of the victim on the floor of the kitchen. Defendant argued that the photographs were cumulative, prejudicial and irrelevant. The court explained that although photographs that tend to establish only cause of death are unnecessary where ample testimony of this is also presented, here the photographs were introduced to show the viciousness of the attack in order to establish purpose or knowledge to support the murder charge as opposed to a manslaughter conviction. 224 N.J. Super. at 250, 540 A. 2d 201. The court further noted that merely because photographs are cumulative does not mandate (or justify) their exclusion. It explained: The State had assumed the burden of showing a purposeful and knowing murder, and the fact that the photographs were gruesome in their revelations does not detract from the fact that they were legitimately a part of the State's proof of defendant's criminal state of mind. From them the jury could infer that the attack was performed with such convulsive ferocity that it could only have been the product of a knowing purpose to cause death. [ Sanchez, 224 N.J. Super. at 250, 540 A. 2d 201 (quoting State v. Micheliche, 220 N.J. Super. 532, 545, 533 A. 2d 41 (App.Div.), certif. den., 109 N.J. 40, 532 A. 2d 1108 (1987)).] In State v. Bucanis, 26 N.J. 45, 138 A. 2d 739 (1958), an autopsy photograph of the victim showed exposed abdominal organs and a knife, sponge and other instruments, and also removed organs to one side. We noted the pervasive discretion of the trial court to determine admissibility, but explained: [It is presumed] that the trial judge [will] exercise a modicum of sound judicial discretion and exclude any picture that was unusually gruesome or repulsive and had little evidential value, admitting only those which would be of significant assistance to the jury in its deliberations as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant and which were not unduly prejudicial. [ Id. at 53, 138 A. 2d 739]. We held that the photograph in question should have been excluded, but that only when a defendant has been substantially prejudiced does it constitute reversible error. In State v. Rose, supra , an autopsy picture showing the entry of the wound was admitted by the trial court during the guilt phase. We cited the general rule that normally the trial court has discretion over these determinations. We held that because of the prejudicial potential and cumulative nature of the evidence, it should have been excluded. We concluded, however, that the error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. 112 N.J. at 536, 548 A. 2d 1058 (erroneous admissions of photographs and physical evidence not clearly capable of producing an unjust result. R. 2:10-2.). Although the question is very close, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs in either the guilt or penalty phases. The trial court properly considered their size and context and did not admit all the photographs into evidence. In the guilt phase, these photographs were offered to prove that the killings were done knowingly or purposefully. Likewise, in the penalty phase, the photographs were relevant to establish aggravating factor c(4)(c), defendant's intent to cause severe suffering before death or else to show depravity.