State v. Bryden R. Williams (070388)
95 A.3d 701
N.J.2014Background
- Whitley was killed by Williams during an incident at Dynesha Gibson’s apartment in Plainfield after Williams confronted him with a handgun.
- Whitley and Boyd retrieved a phone; Gibson warned them to leave before Williams arrived and Williams then forced Whitley into an alley and shot him.
- Dr. Zaretski performed the autopsy; Dr. Hua, who did not perform the autopsy, testified based on the autopsy report, photos, and other materials.
- Defense defense argued self-defense; cross-examined Hua about gunpowder residue and bullet trajectory to support that theory.
- Defendant did not object to Hua’s testimony at trial; he cross-examined Hua and testimony supported defense theory; jury convicted.
- Appellate Division rejected the claim; Supreme Court granted certification limited to whether the non-autopsy pathologist’s testimony violated Confrontation Clause; Court held waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of confrontation rights via failure to object | Williams did not object and cross-examined; waiver applies | Confrontation rights were violated by admitting non-testifying pathologist testimony | Waiver due to failure to object and cross-examine; rights not violated on merits |
| Invited-error doctrine application | Strategy did not amount to error warranting reversal | Invited-error doctrine should not bar review when error exists | Invited-error doctrine applied; no reversal for confrontation claim |
| Confrontation under waiver with defense strategy | Defense strategy accepted Hua’s testimony to support self-defense | Strategy does not excuseConfrontation Clause protections | Strategic decisions to forego objection waived Confrontation Clause claim |
| Pretrial notice/demand for non-testing expert testimony | Guidance to notify would-be non-testing experts before trial is prudent | Not necessary in this case | Court recommends pretrial notice/demand rule; remand for rulemaking |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court (2004)) (Confrontation Clause prohibits testimonial hearsay unless tested by cross-examination)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (Supreme Court (2011)) (Non-testifying lab reports not admissible as substitute for live testimony)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court (2009)) (Defendant bears burden to object to testimony from forensic analysts)
- State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383 (New Jersey Supreme Court (2009)) (Strategic choices not to cross-examine videotaped statements analyzed)
- State v. M.C. III, 201 N.J. 328 (New Jersey Supreme Court (2010)) (Invited-error doctrine and fairness considerations in confrontation context)
- State ex rel. J.A., 195 N.J. 324 (New Jersey Supreme Court (2008)) (Confrontation Clause concerns discussed in context of testimonial statements)