State v. Cabbell
207 N.J. 311
| N.J. | 2011Background
- Defendants Timyan Cabbell and John Calhoun were tried for murder and related weapons offenses in New Jersey court.
- Karine Martin and Tyson Privott were key State witnesses; Martin provided an out-of-court statement identifying defendants.
- Martin refused to testify at trial; the court held a Rule 104 hearing out of the jury’s presence to assess her statement’s admissibility.
- Martin’s in-court testimony was limited; the out-of-court statement was read to the jury without cross-examination by defense in front of the jury.
- The majority holds that admitting Martin’s testimonial statement without defense cross-examination before the jury violated the Confrontation Clause and requires a new trial; Privott’s statements were admissible with proper cross-examination, and the court rejects forfeiture-by-wrongdoing as a basis to admit the statements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Martin’s testimonial statement was admissible without cross-examination before the jury. | Cabbell and Calhoun argue confrontation rights were violated. | Defendants contend they lacked an opportunity to cross-examine Martin before the jury. | Violated the Confrontation Clause; new trial required. |
| Whether Privott’s prior statements were admissible given cross-examination opportunities. | State contends Privott’s statements were admissible as prior inconsistent statements with cross-examination. | Defense had the chance to cross-examine Privott; statements should be admissible. | Admissible; proper cross-examination satisfied confrontation rights. |
| Whether forfeiture-by-wrongdoing applies to admit Martin’s statement despite cross-examination issues. | State argues the rule should permit admission due to wrongdoing by defendants. | Forfeiture rule not satisfied; cannot admit absent cross-examination. | Not applicable; rule not satisfied and rule not needed to admit the statement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (establishes testimonial-confrontation framework)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (defines testimonial vs. nontestimonial; ongoing emergencies)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (limits on confrontation where child testimony is concerned; nonjury options)
- State v. Nyhammer, 197 N.J. 383 (N.J. 2009) (upholds admission of certain statements with cross-examination opportunity)
- State v. Gross, 121 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1990) (factors for reliability of prior statements under Gross rule)