State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 05 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 6.,6. |
| Parties | STATE v. BELL et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Passaic County.
James Jackson Bell and others were convicted of violation of the Gangster Act, and they bring error.
Judgment affirmed.
Argued January term, 1936, before BROGAN, C. J., and LLOYD and DONGES, JJ.
Albert J. Shea, of Hoboken, and John W. Ockford, of Union City, for plaintiffs in error.
Arthur C. Dunn, of Paterson, for defendant in error.
Plaintiffs in error were convicted at the Passaic county quarter sessions upon an indictment under what may be called the Gangster Act, chapter 155, P.L.1934 (N.J. St.Annual 1934, § 52—43r(12) et seq.). The indictment contained two counts, one under section 3 of the act (N.J.St.Annual 1934, § 52-43r(14), and the other under section 4 (N.J.St.Annual 1934, § 52—43r (15). The first count under section 3 was dismissed with the consent of the state's attorney.
The first section of this act (N.J.St. Annual 1934, § 52—43r(12) declares a gangster to be an enemy of the state. The second section (N.J.St.Annual 1934, § 52—43r(13), with certain exceptions, declares any person having possession of a machine gun is a gangster. The third section (N.J.St.Annual 1934, § 52—43r (14) pertains to convicted persons apprehended while carrying a deadly weapon without a permit. The fourth section (N. J.St. Annual 1934, § 52—43r(15), under which the convictions were had, is as follows:
The state offered evidence to prove that the plaintiffs in error were arrested while occupying, along with four other men, a small house in Wayne township, Passaic county. The place was raided by the state police, detectives from the office of the county prosecutor, as well as police officers from New York and from the local township. The raid occurred on Sunday morning at S:30 o'clock on June 23, 1935. A search of the premises uncovered several loaded revolvers, a loaded rifle, a gas riot gun and its accompanying equipment, a handbag containing two German Luger pistols, loaded, and a supply of ammunition. Some of these weapons were recognized as having been stolen, one from an officer of Cumberland county, and one from a salesman of police equipment in West New York. There were two automobiles outside the house, one carrying stolen license plates. Records of criminal convictions in New York were offered and received in evidence.
We are of the opinion that there was ample evidence to support the conclusion that the plaintiffs in error were persons not engaged in any lawful occupation, that they were members of a gang consisting of two or more persons, and that each of them had been convicted of crime.
We are also of the opinion that there was no error in the admission of the evidence complained of, namely, the revolvers, bullets, masks, and other equipment taken in the raid when the plaintiffs in error were taken into custody. These exhibits were proper to show the character of the association of the persons in the house and were material in the effort to show the existence of a gang of two or more persons to which plaintiffs in error belonged.
The remaining point is that the section of the statute under which the convictions were had is unconstitutional. The assignment of error complains that the statute is violative of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it deprives plaintiffs in error of due process of law; of the Fourteenth Amendment to that Constitution in that it deprives them of the equal protection of the law; and of article 1, section 15, of the Constitution of New Jersey, in that it provides cruel and unusual punishment.
We are of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lanzetta v. State New Jersey
...prison for not more than ten years and not less than five years, at hard labor. On the authority of its recent decision in State v. Bell, 188 A. 737, 15 N.J.Misc. 109, the Supreme Court entered judgment affirming the conviction. State v. Pius, 118 N.J.L. 212, 192 A. 89. The Court of Errors ......
-
Ex parte Zee
...boundaries, as a matter of necessary public policy. State v. Pius, 118 N.J.L. 212, 192 A. 89 (Sup.Ct.1937); State v. Bell, 188 A. 737, 15 N.J.Misc. 109 (Sup.Ct.1937), affirmed State v. Gaynor, 119 N.J.L. 582, 197 A. 360 (E. & Coming now to the claimed unconstitutionality of this act as prov......
-
State v. Gaynor
...and others were convicted of violation of the Gangster Act, and to review a judgment of the Supreme Court which affirmed their conviction, 188 A. 737, IS N.J. Misc. 109, they bring Affirmed. John W. Ockford, of Union City, for plaintiffs in error. Arthur C. Dunn, Prosecutor of the Pleas, of......
-
State v. Burkitt, 17720.
...in 1898, and we think it clearly sound under the police power of the state. State v. Griffin, 84 N.J.L. 429, 87 A. 138; State v. Bell, 188 A. 737, 15 N.J.Misc. 109; Levine v. State, 110 N.J.L. 467, 166 A. 300. Finally the argument is made that the conduct of the trial was unfair, and the ve......
-
A Plurality of the Supreme Court Asserts a Due Process Right to Do Absolutely Nothing in City of Chicago v. Morales
...been convicted of any crime, in this or in any other State, is declared to be a gangster. Id.265. Pius, 192 A. at 91 (citing State v. Bell, 188 A. 737 (N.J. 1937)). 266. 188 A. 737 (1937). 267. State v. Bell, 188 A. 737 (N.J. 1937). 268. Bell, 188 A. at 738. 269. Id. 270. Id. 271. See gener......
-
A Plurality of the Supreme Court Asserts a Due Process Right to Do Absolutely Nothing in City of Chicago v. Morales
...been convicted of any crime, in this or in any other State, is declared to be a gangster. Id.265. Pius, 192 A. at 91 (citing State v. Bell, 188 A. 737 (N.J. 1937)). 266. 188 A. 737 (1937). 267. State v. Bell, 188 A. 737 (N.J. 1937). 268. Bell, 188 A. at 738. 269. Id. 270. Id. 271. See gener......