State v. Dock
15 A.3d 1
N.J.2011Background
- Defendant Jamiyl Dock was convicted in 1999 of first-degree murder of Stewart, second-degree aggravated assault of Allen, and weapons offenses.
- Allen testified as a defense witness wearing handcuffs; a prior attempt to draw a diagram was allowed after re-positioning the restraints.
- Artwell (2003) held restraints on defense witnesses may be prohibited or limited, creating a potential retroactive change in the law.
- Dock's PCR petition argued ineffective assistance and due process violations due to Allen’s shackling and lack of curative instruction.
- Appellate Division remanded for an evidentiary hearing to consider waiver and strategy; the PCR court vacated convictions, then the State sought appeal on retroactivity.
- This Court reversed, reinstating Dock’s convictions and sentence, holding Artwell’s retroactivity is prospective only and not fully retroactive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Artwell a new rule of law for retroactivity analysis? | State contends Artwell created a new rule applicable prospectively. | Dock argues Artwell is not new law and thus retroactive. | Artwell constitutes a new rule of law. |
| Should Artwell be given full retroactive effect? | Artwell should apply to all cases, including final judgments. | Retroactivity should be limited; Artwell not fully retroactive. | Artwell should not be given full retroactive effect. |
| What retroactivity framework applies to Artwell's rule? | Knight framework supports full retroactivity analysis for new rules. | Knight framework supports limited retroactivity (prospective or pipeline). | Artwell is applied prospectively; not pipeline or full retroactivity. |
| Does Artwell's restraint rule require a due process remedy in this case? | Retroactivity would grant relief for due process violation. | No due process denial given non-full retroactivity. | No due process relief; convictions reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knight, 678 A.2d 642 (1996) (three-factor retroactivity analysis for new criminal rules)
- State v. Cummings, 875 A.2d 906 (2005) (defines threshold 'new rule of law' for retroactivity)
- State v. Artwell, 832 A.2d 295 (2003) (prohibits shackling defense witnesses absent safety need; sets factors)
- State v. Kuchera, 969 A.2d 1052 (2009) (applies Artwell principles to prosecution witnesses; security focus)
- State v. Echols, 972 A.2d 1091 (2009) (Artwell retroactivity context in direct appeal path)