Boyd, In re
| Decision Date | 08 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. A--54,A--54 |
| Citation | 36 N.J. 285,176 A.2d 793 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Alleged Criminal Contempt of Toby BOYD. STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Toby BOYD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Samuel D. Bozza, Newark, for defendant-appellant.
Peter Murray, Asst. Pros., Nutley, for plaintiff-respondent (Brendan T. Byrne, Essex County Pros., Newark, attorney).
The opinion of the court was delivered
Boyd was convicted of contempt of court and was sentenced to 60 days in the county penitentiary. We certified his appeal before the Appellate Division acted upon it.
Boyd was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury investigating a shooting affray and other criminal activity from which the shooting was thought to have ensued. He refused to answer certain questions, claiming self-incrimination. He was brought before the Superior Court and ordered to answer. Upon his refusal, these proceedings were instituted and later tried before another judge.
This case is controlled by In re Boiardo, 34 N.J. 599, 170 A.2d 816 (1961). Here, as there, the witness rested upon the naked assertion of possible incrimination by a mere statement of the abstract proposition. He declined to state the area of possible criminal involvement, although given full opportunity to indicate the nature of the charge he allegedly feared. As we said in Boiardo, the witness must make that minimum disclosure, for otherwise he, rather than the court, would be the final judge of his own plea. Such disclosure could not incriminate him, and if perchance some factual material of that capacity inadvertently emerged, he would be protected against the use of it. State v De Cola, 33 N.J. 335, 164 A.2d 729 (1960). Boyd failed to make the required showing. Indeed, what he did say revealed affirmatively that he did not harbor the alleged fear, but rather would not tell what he knew for some other reason.
It is urged that Boyd was entitled to indictment and trial by jury. The issue seems not to have been raised below. At any rate the contempt was triable summarily, I.e., by the court, without indictment and without a jury. Department of Health v. Roselle, 34 N.J. 331, 338--42, 169 A.2d 153 (1961). We need not consider whether punishment beyond that constitutionally permissible for offenses below the grade of crime may be imposed for contempt if the constitutional guarantees here sought to be invoked are not afforded.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farber, Matter of
...his own claim, a rule recognized in innumerable contexts. In re Addonizio, 53 N.J. 107, 116-117, 248 A.2d 531 (1968); In re Boyd, 36 N.J. 285, 286-287, 176 A.2d 793 (1962); In re Boiardo, 34 N.J. 599, 602 (1961); State v. DeCola, 33 N.J. 335, 350, 164 A.2d 729 (1960); In re Selser, Supra, 1......
-
State v. Warren
... ... See In re Yengo, 84 N.J. 111, 119-120, 417 A.2d 533 (1980), cert. den. 449 U.S. 1124, 101 S.Ct. 941, 67 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981); In re Carton Contempt, 48 N.J. 9, [451 A.2d 200] 21, 222 A.2d 92 (1966); In re Buehrer, 50 N.J. 501, 515, 236 A.2d 592 (1967); In re Boyd, 36 N.J. 285, 287, 176 A.2d 793 (1962); In re Hinsinger, 180 N.J.Super. 491, 495, 435 A.2d 850 (App.Div.1981); In re Ungar Contempt, 160 N.J.Super. 322, 330, 389 A.2d 995 (App.Div.1978). Such power finds its roots in "[s]tark necessity." United States v. Mirra, 220 F.Supp. 361, 364 ... ...
-
Addonizio, In re
... ... Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 11--12, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653, 661--662 (1964); In re Pillo, 11 N.J. 8, 19--20, 93 A.2d 176 (1952); State v. De Cola, 33 N.J. 335, 350--352, 164 A.2d 729 ... Page 117 ... (1960); In re Boiardo, 34 N.J. 599, 602, 170 A.2d 816 (1961); In re Boyd, 36 N.J. 285, 176 A.2d 793 (1962), and accordingly when the privilege is asserted with respect to records, the witness must produce them so that the court may determine whether the claim is spurious, Consolidated Rendering Co. v. Vermont, 207 U.S. 541, 552--553, 28 S.Ct. 178, 52 L.Ed. 327, 335 ... ...
-
Buehrer, In re
... ... It has long been settled that certain contempts may be prosecuted summarily notwithstanding the provisions of the State Constitution relating to trial by jury, now Art. I, 9, and indictment, now Art. I, 8. In re Boyd, 36 N.J. 285, 176 A.2d 793 (1962); State v. Doty, 32 N.J.L. 403 (Sup.Ct.1868). The United States Supreme Court maintains the same view of the Federal Constitution, as its decisions just cited reveal. Rather those cases are relevant only insofar as they culminated, in the plurality opinion in ... ...