State v. Jahnell Weaver (069185), 219 N.J. 131

Background

June 26, 2004: At a Camden graduation party an argument between Jahnell Weaver and Edward Williams escalated; five shots were fired, Williams died and Amyr Hill was seriously injured. Witnesses placed Weaver and co-defendant Khalil Bryant at the scene and indicated one of them fired the shots.
Five months later (Nov. 2004) police recovered the murder weapon at Bryant’s residence in connection with a different shooting in Winslow Township; ballistics matched the Camden weapon. Bryant pled guilty to charges from the Winslow incident.
In 2005 Bryant told the Camden-investigating officer that he had possessed the gun the night of the Camden shooting and that “someone” (redacted in his statement) gave it to him afterward; pretrial counsel agreed to redact Bryant’s reference to Weaver.
Weaver’s defense: third-party guilt (Bryant, not Weaver, was the shooter). Weaver sought to introduce Bryant’s later shooting and use of the same gun (reverse 404(b)) and moved to sever trials; the trial court excluded that evidence under Cofield and denied severance.
At trial the jury heard a redacted version of Bryant’s 2005 statement and other eyewitness testimony; Weaver was convicted on all counts and given a lengthy sentence; Bryant was acquitted of murder but convicted on weapon-related counts. Weaver appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed; the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Weaver's Argument	Held
Admissibility of defensive (reverse) 404(b) evidence (Bryant’s later use of the murder weapon)	Evidence was propensity evidence and properly excluded under Cofield	Reverse 404(b) should be judged by simple relevance (not Cofield); evidence tends to exculpate Weaver and was admissible	Court: Reverse 404(b) governed by relevance (N.J.R.E. 401) with Rule 403 balancing; trial court erred in applying Cofield and should have admitted the evidence defensively
Severance of joint trial	No prejudice once reverse 404(b) was excluded; joinder appropriate and efficient	Severance required because Weaver’s third-party guilt defense was antagonistic/corely irreconcilable with Bryant’s defense and could not be presented jointly if reverse 404(b) admitted	Court: Because defensive 404(b) evidence should have been admitted, severance should have been granted; denial was erroneous
Admission of redacted co‑defendant statement (Bryant’s 2005 statement using “someone”) and Confrontation Clause	Redacted statement was non‑incriminating on its face; admissible; any error harmless given other evidence	Redaction was ineffective once testimony established Bryant received the gun that night; admission violated Weaver’s Sixth Amendment right to confront Bryant	Court: Admission violated confrontation principles (Bruton/Gray). The timing detail eliminated the inferential gap and pointed to Weaver; error was not harmless
Cumulative error	Errors harmless individually; conviction should stand	Combined evidentiary & severance errors plus confrontation violation denied a fair trial	Court: Cumulative effect of errors was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; new trial required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992) (establishes four‑prong test for prosecution’s 404(b) other‑crimes evidence)
State v. Garfole, 76 N.J. 445 (1978) (defendant’s defensive use of other‑crimes evidence governed by relevance standard)
State v. Cook, 179 N.J. 533 (2004) (reaffirming relaxed relevancy standard for reverse 404(b) with Rule 403 balancing)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (co‑defendant’s confession that directly incriminates defendant inadmissible in joint trial)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (redaction that removes all references to defendant can avoid Bruton when statement is not incriminating on its face)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (blank spaces or explicit deletions that point to defendant violate Confrontation Clause)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay inadmissible against defendant unless declarant testifies or is cross‑examined)