STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. STANLEY WALKER, JR. (12-01-0019, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0864-14T3

Background

Defendant Stanley Walker, Jr. was indicted on murder, attempted murder, firearms, and related charges arising from a July 13, 2011 shooting; jury convicted him of lesser-included manslaughter and aggravated-assault counts and two firearm counts; acquitted on some other counts.
At trial the State’s key eyewitness was defendant’s girlfriend, Elisa Quiles, who had pled to hindering in exchange for testifying and had given inconsistent pretrial statements about whether defendant had a gun.
Defendant gave a post-arrest oral statement admitting he fled the scene and that he had used marijuana earlier that day; he did not testify at trial.
During closing argument the prosecutor said, in effect, that "if anybody else was in the alley, defendant would have told you that," a remark the defense objected to as commenting on defendant’s silence and shifting the burden.
The trial judge denied a mistrial and declined to give a curative instruction; the judge also admitted defendant’s unredacted oral statement (which mentioned marijuana use) without a full on-the-record 404(b)/Cofield analysis or a limiting instruction.
The Appellate Division reversed the convictions, holding the prosecutor improperly commented on defendant’s failure to testify and that the error was not cured; it also noted instructional/admissibility errors that cumulatively supported reversal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s closing comment implying defendant would have told jury if someone else was in alley (comments on silence/burden-shifting)	Remarks were fair argument about inconsistencies and what physical evidence supports; not meant to comment on silence	Comment drew attention to defendant’s decision not to testify and impermissibly shifted burden to him; required mistrial/curative instruction	Reversed convictions: prosecutor improperly commented on defendant’s silence; no curative instruction; error not harmless
Failure to give sua sponte cooperating-witness and prior-conviction jury charges	No obligation to give those charges absent request; general credibility charge sufficed	Judge should have given Model Charges on cooperating witness and prior conviction of witness to aid jury assessment	No plain error: defendant did not request charges; general credibility instruction and cross-examination adequate; no reversible error on this point
Admission of defendant’s unredacted statement referencing marijuana without on-the-record Cofield/404(b) analysis or limiting instruction	Statement was intrinsic evidence relevant to perception/response; admissible without strict 404(b) analysis	If 404(b) evidence, judge failed to conduct Cofield balancing and omitted required limiting instruction	Judge erred in failing to conduct full Cofield analysis on record and failing to give limiting instruction; even if intrinsic, limiting instruction was required; contributes to reversal
Sentencing (extended term, consecutive sentences, Yarbough analysis)	State justified extended and consecutive terms based on facts and convictions	Defendant argued improper double-counting, insufficient mitigation, wrongfully consecutive	Court did not address on appeal because convictions reversed; sentencing claim not reached by panel

Key Cases Cited

State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76 (1999) (tripartite test for remedy when prosecutor comments on defendant's silence)
State v. Cooke, 345 N.J. Super. 480 (App. Div. 2001) (curative instruction can cure improper comments on defendant's silence)
State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011) (definition and treatment of intrinsic evidence vs. 404(b))
State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (factors and procedure for admitting other-crimes evidence under Rule 404(b))
State v. Ciuffini, 164 N.J. Super. 145 (App. Div. 1978) (drug use testimony admissible for credibility but requires limiting instruction)
State v. Simms, 224 N.J. 393 (2016) (cumulative legal errors may require reversal to prevent unfair trial)