Only two jurors on the deliberating panel did not suspect that defendant had a prior record. Sadoff testified that there was no support for the mitigating factors of extreme emotional disturbance or mental disease or defect. We, therefore, conclude that at most, minimal prejudice resulted from this line of questioning. Although the detectives found nothing incriminating in the house, they became suspicious of Timmendequas because he was sweating and shaking as they questioned him. He was living with two other convicted sex offenders. Megan lay dead and he blamed her for the wound on his hand.
The prosecutor was asking the jury to consider the origin of the mitigation evidence presented by the defense. That amendment marked the culmination of the Legislature's efforts to increase the participation of crime victims in the criminal justice system. Guilty as to every single count in the indictment. He grabbed her, grabbed a belt, and put it around her neck. When pressed by detectives, defendant admitted that he had tried to sniff her underwear. She focused on the inconsistencies in the evidence and pointed out the flaws in the defense's theory. A trial court's finding of impartiality must be given deference, and overturned only when manifestly erroneous.
The First Attack Two Little Girls, And a Stranger If anyone had been watching at about 4:30 on a fall afternoon in Piscataway in 1979, nothing would have seemed unusual. Clues and Conflicting Stories Point to Suspect At the station, Timmendequas waived his right to counsel and agreed to a search of his truck, which he had driven to the police station. The Facts Defendant's statements to the police, made over a three-day period beginning on the day of the victim's disappearance, were important to the State's case. I, 22, as it would impose great hardship on the victim's parents. The next day, July 30, at about 10:40 a. Accordingly, the trial court's decision to change its original venue order is not an abuse of the trial court's discretion and is not reversible error.
Doris told Krych that she and Skip lived with her parents on their return to New Jersey. Thus the murder, according to the psychologist, was not premeditated. Cullen has not appealed his convictions in New Jersey, court records indicate. Defendant, who was present during the search, volunteered that he recently had cut his hand on the curtain rod that hung in front of the glass separating the passenger and cap portions of the truck. Timmendequas, on the other hand, was shaking and perspiring heavily throughout his interview. Hamilton Township Patrol Officer Paul Seitz testified that he and Officer Mike Smith arrived at the Kanka's residence at 8:49 p.
Based on our examination of the record, we conclude that defendant was tried by a fair and impartial jury at both the guilt and penalty phases of the trial. Reconsideration of Change of Venue Order At the conclusion of the change of venue motion, the State requested a hearing on the location chosen by the court. He was not told that he would be treated more favorably if he cooperated. Virginia, , 430, 111 S. If the jury cannot agree unanimously on a death sentence, Timmendequas will face 30 years to life in prison for murder.
Option of Empaneling Foreign Jury In State v. Detective O'Dwyer, while looking for latent fingerprints, found a brown toy chest and a piece of black felt in the back of defendant's pickup truck. In determining whether a juror is predisposed to bias or prejudice, the trial court has a duty to evaluate the juror's entire response. The other expert concluded that Timmendequas suffered from pedophilia, post-traumatic stress, and a schizoid personality disorder. He stuck his finger in her vagina. Evidence included bloodstains, hair, and samples, as well as a bite mark matching Kanka's teeth on Timmendequas' hand, and led to a guilty verdict on charges of , four counts of aggravated sexual assault, and two counts of —causing a death in the course of certain specific felonies.
In Koedatich I, supra, 112 N. A child playing with a dog. Prosecutors must argue based on facts in the record. Yvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant Jay L. However harmful to defendant, we find the statements properly were admitted.
His mother Doris was a promiscuous alcoholic who had a total of ten children by seven men. Williams I, supra, 93 N. Thus, defendant is not entitled to invoke the Natale holding. Therefore, for the sake of judicial economy, we address that issue. Concerning factor 4, defendant argues that the demographic characteristics of Camden County are more similar to those of Mercer County. Accordingly, we find no prejudice capable of producing an unjust result.
The following day, her body was discovered in Mercer County Park. In fact, you didn't hear about those albums and that they existed and that Carol Krych had them until I brought it up on cross-examination. Podboy testified that if a child's mother drinks and neglects her child between the ages of birth and 5-7, the child will experience difficulties with trust, sex roles and self-control. You're going to need a friend on the outside, I'll be that friend. The substance of that statement, as it differed from his first formal statement, is as follows: when Megan tried to leave defendant's room, a struggle ensued; as she fell to the floor, the victim hit her head on the door frame and her face on the dresser; defendant then slapped her face, causing her mouth to bleed; he pulled her pants down and tried, unsuccessfully, to penetrate her vaginally with his penis; he penetrated her with his finger instead. Neither was it improper for the prosecutor to elicit the fact that the victim's mother cried when she was shown pieces of her daughter's clothing.
He appeals directly to this Court as of right. Advertisement Some of the neighbors knew about Mr. The State could not specify the offense. The court rejected defendant's motion, finding that the only way to ensure juror impartiality and to avoid the prospect that jurors made the forbidden connection mid-trial was to question the jurors extensively on their knowledge of Megan's Law and defendant's prior history. Evaluating the prosecutor's guilt phase opening statement in its entirety along with the trial court's curative instructions, we are unable to conclude that the statement, although at times improper, was so prejudicial as to deny defendant the right to a fair trial.