Opinion ID: 1951916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Provide Hampton and Kociolek Charges

Text: During its instructions to the jury at the end of the guilt phase, the trial court did not provide and defendant did not request the charges required by State v. Hampton, 61 N.J. 250, 294 A. 2d 23 (1972), and State v. Kociolek, 23 N.J. 400, 129 A. 2d 417 (1957), regarding the credibility of defendant's oral statements. Specifically, defendant points out that the incriminating statements allegedly made by defendant to Kaighn, Shiplee, Sadlowski and Wrigley were a vital link in the State's case, without which any conviction would have been unlikely. In view of the inconsistencies in some of those statements, and the witnesses' attempts to curry favor with the State or obtain reward money, along with Sadlowski's and Shiplee's admissions of having ingested drugs or alcohol on the night of the murder, defendant argues that those instructions were necessary to focus the jury's attention on the unreliability of the statements. Defendant first urges that in capital cases the failure to provide Hampton and Kociolek instructions is per se reversible error. We rejected an analogous contention in State v. Jordan, 147 N.J. 409, 425-28, 688 A. 2d 97 (1997). In view of defendant's failure to object to the instructions at trial, we consider the court's failure to provide those instructions sua sponte under a plain error standard, that is, whether their omission was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. R. 2:10-2. Hampton dealt with a defendant's statements to police in a custodial setting. 61 N.J. at 272, 294 A. 2d 23. N.J.R.E. 104(c) is the embodiment of the Hampton rule, and provides: Where by virtue of any rule of law a judge is required in a criminal action to make a preliminary determination as to the admissibility of a statement by the defendant, the judge shall hear and determine the question of its admissibility out of the presence of the jury. In such a hearing the rules of evidence shall apply and the burden of persuasion as to the admissibility of the statement is on the prosecution. If the judge admits the statement the jury shall not be informed of the finding that the statement is admissible but shall be instructed to disregard the statement if it finds that it is not credible. If the judge subsequently determines from all of the evidence that the statement is not admissible, the judge shall take appropriate action.