221 A.3d 1166
N.J.2019Background
- In July 2012 Williams met the victim to buy oxycodone; the victim followed Williams into an apartment building with $900 and was later found fatally shot; $500 remained on his body.
- Williams initially told associates he intended to rob the victim, carried a gun, scuffled with the victim, shot him in the leg and then the head, took money, and fled; he later told police the victim produced a gun during a struggle and the gun accidentally fired.
- Craig (the victim’s companion) told police about prior, peaceful street purchases the victim had made from another supplier (John), including a December 2011 mall transaction in which no one had a gun.
- At a pretrial N.J.R.E. 104 hearing Williams sought to cross-examine Craig about the prior December 2011 transaction to support a defensive theory that the victim habitually armed himself when buying drugs and therefore brought the handgun to the July 2012 meeting.
- The trial court excluded the prior-transaction evidence relying on State v. Cofield and N.J.R.E. 404(b); Williams was convicted; the Appellate Division reversed, applying Rule 401 relevance for defensive "reverse 404(b)" evidence and ordering a new trial.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division: it held reverse-404(b) evidence is governed by Rule 401 (not Cofield), but Williams’s proffer lacked probative value and was therefore irrelevant (and alternatively cumulative under Rule 403); convictions reinstated and sentencing issues remanded.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Williams's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cofield/Rule 404(b) governs a defendant’s attempt to introduce other-crime evidence defensively (reverse 404(b)) | Trial court properly excluded the evidence under Cofield/404(b) because transactions were dissimilar | Cofield is inapplicable; defensive use of other-crime evidence should be judged under Rule 401 relevance | Cofield/404(b) inapplicable to defensive other-crime evidence; use Rule 401 (agreeing with App. Div. on standard) |
| Whether prior, nonviolent drug transaction was relevant to prove the victim brought the handgun in the July 2012 meeting (Rule 401) | The prior transaction was too dissimilar and therefore irrelevant; it did not negate guilt or support self-defense theory | The prior transaction showed the victim used street sources and knew risks, supporting an inference he habitually carried a gun and did so in July 2012 | Proffered evidence lacked probative value and materiality; speculative and insufficiently logically connected to the claim of a weapon being present; therefore inadmissible under Rule 401 |
| Whether the evidence should be excluded even if relevant (Rule 403) | If relevant, admission would be cumulative and a waste of time because other admitted evidence already showed the victim’s safety concerns | Evidence was necessary to explain why the victim would have a gun despite earlier unarmed transactions | Even if relevant, would have been excluded under Rule 403 as cumulative (texts and other evidence already conveyed the victim’s safety concerns) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (established New Jersey’s other-crimes admissibility framework applied by trial courts)
- State v. Weaver, 219 N.J. 131 (2014) (recognizes defensive use of other-crime evidence and limits Cofield when defendant seeks to introduce such evidence)
- State v. Garfole, 76 N.J. 445 (1978) (defendant may offer other-crime evidence that tends to negate guilt or support innocence)
- State v. Cook, 179 N.J. 533 (2004) (describes use of Rule 401 relevance for reverse 404(b) evidence)
- State v. Perry, 225 N.J. 222 (2016) (discusses probative value and standards for evaluating evidence)
- State v. Garron, 177 N.J. 147 (2003) (probative-value inquiry: evidence must tend to establish the proposition offered)
- State v. Stevens, 115 N.J. 289 (1989) (trial courts should consider whether other admissible evidence can serve the same purpose as proffered other-crime evidence)
- Verdicchio v. Ricca, 179 N.J. 1 (2004) (evidence lacking probative value does not justify reasonable inference and is irrelevant)