243 A.3d 647
N.J.2021Background
- In 2014 Damon Williams handed a bank teller a note reading “Please, all the money, 100, 50, 20, 10. Thank you,” and received about $4,600; he displayed no weapon and made no verbal threat.
- The prosecution argued the central question was whether Williams purposely put the teller in fear of immediate bodily injury (second-degree robbery) or instead committed third-degree theft.
- State witnesses testified the teller was visibly shaken and that Williams leaned in, told the teller not to include a GPS-tracked pack of $20s, and walked out after receiving the money. Fingerprints on the note identified Williams.
- During closing the prosecutor repeatedly used the theme “actions speak louder than words” and displayed a PowerPoint slide showing a still from The Shining (Jack Nicholson saying “Here’s Johnny!”) to suggest a threatening context. The image had not been admitted into evidence or previously disclosed.
- Defense counsel objected after the slide; the trial judge offered a curative instruction but noted it could underscore the argument, and defense counsel declined the instruction. The jury convicted Williams of second-degree robbery.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court held the prosecutor’s comments and use of the extra‑evidentiary movie still were prejudicial error, reversed the Appellate Division, vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by using an inflammatory, extra‑evidentiary movie still and violent metaphor in closing | Use of the image illustrated that jurors should consider defendant’s physical conduct (not words alone); error conceded but harmless | Image invited jurors to equate defendant with a violent, ax‑wielding movie character and went beyond the evidence | Prosecutorial comments and image were improper and went beyond the evidence; misconduct occurred |
| Whether the error was harmless or required reversal; whether disclosure rule for visual aids is required | Error was harmless given trial evidence and jury instructions; no curative instruction requested | Use of the image was likely decisive because the robbery/theft distinction was a close call; disclosure rule unnecessary but disclosure encouraged | Error was "clearly capable" of unfairly influencing the jury; reversal and new trial required; court encourages (but does not mandate) pre‑disclosure of visual aids |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1 (N.J. 1998) (prosecutor may not assert facts beyond the record; error may be harmless depending on evidence)
- State v. Frost, 158 N.J. 76 (N.J. 1999) (prosecutorial misstatements, improper vouching, and failure to cure can require reversal)
- State v. Jackson, 211 N.J. 394 (N.J. 2012) (improper remarks grounded in admitted evidence and followed by curative instruction may be harmless)
- State v. McNeil-Thomas, 238 N.J. 256 (N.J. 2019) (prosecutor’s inferences tied to admitted video and testimony were fair comment)
- Spence v. State, 129 A.3d 212 (Del. 2015) (slides and visual aids may not present impermissible evidence or make arguments that cannot be made orally)
- State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263 (N.J. 1973) (harmless‑error framework: an error is harmless only if not clearly capable of producing an unjust result)