## Facts

- Stanley Caswell, an insurance collector, visited 218–220 North Ninth Street in Kenilworth, New Jersey, on February 12, 1965; defendant Marvin R. Mathis was also present to see his father, who lived in a rear apartment on the lot.
- A witness placed Mathis outside near the time Caswell arrived; shortly thereafter, an occupant heard two loud reports.
- Two residents testified they saw Mathis push an injured man into the back seat of Caswell’s red Renault; one identified the victim as Caswell and saw blood and heard the victim moaning.
- The Renault was driven to a nearby wooded area; witnesses heard two more shots, and the vehicle was set on fire.
- After firefighters extinguished the blaze, Caswell’s body was found inside; the autopsy attributed death to four .22-caliber gunshot wounds.
- Evidence suggested valuables were missing from Caswell’s body; the prosecution relied on a robbery-related theory while also making inconsistent presentations about attempted versus completed robbery.
- The State introduced testimony about Mathis’s lack of steady work and money; the trial court initially barred it as motive evidence but later allowed it ostensibly for impeachment, and the State used it to suggest robbery motive.
- A key corroborating State witness (Lewis Clark) had pending criminal charges; the trial court limited cross-examination about the nature of those charges.
- Mathis admitted being at his father’s residence but denied knowing Caswell, seeing the Renault, or attempting to sell a gun.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution’s inconsistent presentation of attempted robbery versus completed robbery, together with related evidentiary rulings, deprived the defense of fair notice and a fair trial.
2. Whether limiting cross-examination about the nature of pending charges against a key State witness improperly restricted impeachment for bias or interest.
3. Whether the court was required to instruct the jury on second-degree murder despite the parties’ “all-or-nothing” trial posture.
4. Whether evidence of poverty and unemployment was improperly used to prove robbery motive and unfairly prejudiced the defendant.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court found the prosecution’s shifting and inconsistently handled robbery theory misled the defense and risked jury confusion on the felony/robbery component.
- The court held it was error to restrict impeachment of a key witness by preventing inquiry into the nature of that witness’s pending criminal charges, given the relevance to bias and credibility.
- The court held the trial judge had an independent duty to charge second-degree murder when the evidence permitted a rational basis for that verdict; party strategy could not remove that option from the jury.
- The court ruled the State’s use of poverty/unemployment evidence to suggest robbery motive was improper and prejudicial, particularly where admitted under a limited rationale but argued substantively.
- The combined effect of these errors denied the defendant a fair trial in a capital case.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to fair notice of the State’s theory; material shifts or internal inconsistencies (including attempted versus completed robbery) that mislead trial preparation or confuse the jury may require reversal.
- Cross-examination to show a prosecution witness’s bias or interest includes inquiry into pending charges, including their nature, when necessary for the jury to assess credibility.
- In homicide cases, the court must instruct on lesser-included degrees supported by the evidence, even if both parties prefer an “all-or-nothing” submission.
- Poverty or unemployment, standing alone, is an improper basis to infer a robbery motive and poses a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

Because the robbery theory was presented inconsistently, impeachment for bias was improperly curtailed, second-degree murder was not submitted despite evidentiary support, and poverty evidence was misused as motive proof, the conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.


State v. Mathis, 47 N.J. 455, 221 A.2d 529 (N.J. 1966)