Clark v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1896 |
| Citation | 34 A. 3,58 N.J.L. 383 |
| Parties | CLARK v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to supreme court.
Patrick Clark was convicted of assault, and brings error. Affirmed.
J. J. Crandall, for plaintiff in error.
Wilson H. Jenkins, for the State.
The plaintiff in error was indicted by the grand jury of Camden county for an atrocious assault, and, upon his arraignment before the court of quarter sessions of that county, pleaded guilty to the charge. Subsequently, and when he was brought before the court for sentence, he asked leave to retract his plea of guilty, and enter a plea of not guilty to the charge. This application was refused, and sentence pronounced upon him by the court. This refusal on the part of the court, it is insisted on the part of the plaintiff in error, was in violation of his legal right, and we are asked to set aside the judgment below on that ground. The supreme court, in the case of Clark v. State (decided at the February term, 1895) 31 Atl. 979, considered the question of the right of a defendant who had pleaded guilty to an indictment against him to withdraw such plea subsequently, and traverse the charge, and reached the conclusion that the withdrawal of such a plea was not a matter of right, but was addressed to the discretion of the court. We concur in the exposition of the law on this subject contained in the opinion in that case. There was no error in the refusal of the trial court to permit the withdrawal of the plea of guilty, and the entering a plea of not guilty, and the writ of error in this case must therefore be dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Deutsch
...Pometti, supra, 12 N.J., at p. 452, 97 A.2d at p. 402; Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 490, 31 A. 979 (Sup.Ct.1895), affirmed, 58 N.J.L. 383, 34 A. 3 (E. & A. 1895); cf. R.R. 3:7--10(a); Notes, 64 Yale L.J. 590 (1955); 55 Colum.L.Rev. 366 (1955); 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 284 (1960). See also Orfield,......
-
State v. Johnson
...R.S. 2:195--16) and by case law. Compare, for example, Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 31 A. 979 (Sup.Ct.1895), affirmed 58 N.J.L. 383, 34 A. 3 (E. & A. 1895), with State v. Pometti, 23 N.J.Super. 516, 93 A.2d 409 (App.Div.1952), affirmed 12 N.J. 446, 97 A.2d 399 (1953). Laying aside the que......
-
17 Club, Inc., In re, A--186
...the proceedings was essentially a discretionary matter. Cf. Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 31 A. 979 (Sup.Ct.1895), affirmed 58 N.J.L. 383, 34 A. 3 (E. & A.1895); State v. Piracci, 14 N.J.Super. 319, 82 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951); State v. Pometti, 23 N.J.Super. 516, 93 A.2d 409 (App.Div.1952)......
-
State v. Pometti
...the exercise of this judicial discretion was not appealable. Clark v. State, 57 N.J.L. 489, 31 A. 979 (Sup.Ct.1895), affirmed 58 N.J.L. 383, 34 A. 3 (E. & A. 1895). The federal rule, the genesis of ours, and similar in terms, is given the same import. Goo v. United States, 187 F.2d 62 (Ct.A......